Writing Style (amj-writing-style)
When to trigger
- The argument is buried under jargon, hedging, or passive constructions
- The introduction does not make the contribution clear in its first page
- Section logic wanders; the reader cannot follow the theory → method → results → discussion arc
- Sentences are long and nominalized; the "actor doing the action" is hidden
- This is late-stage polish after the theory, design, and contribution are settled
The AMJ prose standard
AMJ values prose that is rigorous yet readable: the theoretical argument should be visible to a reader from another division. Front-load the point — say what you argue, then support it. Write in the active voice with human/organizational actors as subjects. Hedge precisely (state what the data show), not defensively (avoid stacking "may possibly suggest"). AMJ's From the Editors (FTE) series has devoted whole editorials to storytelling and crafting the introduction — the journal genuinely rewards a paper that "tells a story," so treat narrative arc as a substantive standard, not decoration.
Structure to enforce
Standard full structure: Introduction → Theory & Hypotheses → Methods → Results → Discussion. Each section earns its place:
-
Introduction: phenomenon hook → conversation/tension → question → approach → contribution, on the first 1–2 pages.
-
Theory & Hypotheses: each subsection builds toward a numbered hypothesis with an explicit mechanism.
-
Methods: enough detail to replicate; sample, measures, analysis, validity.
-
Results: report tests in hypothesis order; interpret, do not just narrate the tables.
-
Discussion: theoretical implications first, then practical, limitations, future research.
Sentence- and paragraph-level moves
-
Topic sentences: every paragraph opens with its claim; the rest supports it.
-
Active voice: "We theorize that…" / "Leaders allocate attention…" not "It is theorized that…".
-
De-nominalize: "managers decide" beats "managerial decision-making occurs."
-
Define constructs once, then use the term consistently — no synonym drift.
-
Signpost: connect sections explicitly ("Having established X, we now…").
-
Cut hedging stacks: one calibrated qualifier, not three.
-
Consistent terminology for each construct, hypothesis label, and variable across text, tables, and figures.
House style (verify against the current AOM Style Guide)
- Follow AOM/APA-style conventions for citations, headings, and references as specified in the current AMJ Style Guide for Authors.
- US spelling and AOM heading hierarchy; consistent tense (past tense for what you did/found, present for established theory).
- The full manuscript main body must fit the 40-page maximum (text + references + appendices; tables/figures excluded), double-spaced, Times New Roman 12-pt, 1-inch margins — so trimming targets prose, not just exhibits, and a bloated reference list eats into your page budget.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
-
Buried lede: the contribution surfaces only in the discussion.
-
Passive fog: "it was found that" hiding who did what.
-
Jargon walls: dense theoretical terms with no plain-language anchor.
-
Synonym drift: calling the same construct three different names.
-
Defensive hedging: "may potentially possibly suggest" instead of a precise claim.
-
Tense chaos: switching between past and present for the same event.
Output format
【Intro clarity】contribution visible on page 1? yes/no
【Voice】active-voice dominant? flagged passives: [...]
【Topic sentences】claim-first throughout? exceptions: [...]
【Terminology】construct names consistent? drift: [...]
【Structure/signposting】arc intact? gaps: [...]
【House style】AOM/APA citations & headings: pass/fix
【Length】main body vs. 40-page limit (refs+appendices incl.): ok/trim
【Next step】amj-submission
