MISQ readers come from all four traditions — behavioral, design science, economics, and organizational. A behavioral reader may not share an econometrician's vocabulary, and vice versa. Define tradition-specific terms on first use, state the IT artifact and the contribution in plain language up front, and avoid in-group jargon that only one subfield will parse. Front-load the argument: by the end of the introduction the reader should know the IS phenomenon, the artifact's role, the approach, and the contribution.
The page limit counts everything (text, tables, figures, references, appendices) and over-length manuscripts are returned. Editing for style here doubles as editing for length: cut redundancy, fold overlapping paragraphs, and tighten methods boilerplate so the contribution — not filler — fills the budget.
MISQ uses double-anonymous review and the manuscript must contain no identifying information. While polishing, scrub self-identifying citations ("in our prior work [Author, 2021]"), acknowledgements, grant numbers, and identifying dataset/site names from the main file.
Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the IS phenomenon, artifact/platform, theory mechanism, design or empirical warrant, and managerial implication; then test whether the manuscript addresses information-systems reviewers who expect strong IS theory, digital artifact or platform grounding, and evidence with organizational consequence.
claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.【Front-loading】contribution + artifact in intro: yes/fix
【Audience readability】jargon defined across traditions: yes/fix
【APA7 / MISQ style】citations/headings/keywords: pass/issues
【Length & anonymity】within limit; no identifiers: yes/fix
【Next step】misq-submission