Writing Style & House Conventions (smj-writing-style)
When to trigger
- Theory, analysis, and contribution are settled and you are polishing the full draft
- Prose is jargon-heavy, hedged, or buries the argument
- Section structure does not follow the expected strategy-empirical arc
- Reviewers flagged readability, redundancy, or an unclear through-line
Polish late. Editing prose while the identification strategy or contribution is unsettled wastes effort — return to the earlier skills first.
Expected structure (full empirical paper)
Introduction → Theory & Hypotheses → Methods (sample, measures, identification) → Results → Discussion (contribution, implications, limitations, future research) → References. Theory-building qualitative and formal papers vary this arc but still foreground the strategy contribution early.
-
Introduction does heavy lifting: motivate, name the conversation, state the gap and the contribution, preview the design and findings. A reader should know your contribution by the end of page two.
-
Discussion must add interpretation, not re-list results: what the findings mean for strategy theory, boundaries, honest limitations, and a forward agenda.
Style rules SMJ readers reward
-
Argument-first sentences. Lead with the claim; supporting detail follows. Avoid burying the point at the end of a long clause.
-
Active, precise verbs. "We show / we find / the design rules out" beats "it could be argued that there may be a relationship."
-
Define constructs once, use consistently. Do not switch between near-synonyms for the same variable.
-
Hedge only where warranted. Over-hedging ("may possibly suggest a potential tendency") reads as weak evidence; state what the design supports and stop.
-
Signpost. Each section opens by stating its job and how it connects to the argument.
-
Cut redundancy. Intro, theory, and discussion should not repeat the same paragraphs; each advances the argument.
-
Strategy vocabulary, used correctly. Use field terms (rents, isolating mechanisms, dynamic capabilities, governance) precisely — misuse signals an outsider.
House conventions (verify current Author Guidelines)
-
Two abstracts, each up to 125 words: a research summary (precise, stands alone, no citations) and a managerial summary (plain, non-academic, for practitioners). This dual-summary requirement is distinctive to SMJ — AMJ and ASQ ask for a single abstract — so budget real time for the managerial summary.
-
Five (5) keywords for indexing.
-
APA author-date references ("(Author, 2021)"; "(Collins, 2005a, 2005b)") — set your citation manager to APA, not a default style.
- Respect the page budget (full articles ~40 pages incl. tables/figures/references; short research articles ~20 — verify the current limit on the official page); references single-spaced to conserve space.
- US spelling and standard academic register; expand acronyms on first use.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Submitting one abstract when SMJ requires two (research + managerial); a managerial summary written in academic jargon
- A bland abstract that hides the contribution
- Throat-clearing introductions that delay the point for two pages
- Over-hedged prose that makes solid findings read as tentative
- Inconsistent construct naming across sections
- A discussion that restates the results table in prose
- Misused strategy jargon that signals the author is outside the field
- Guessing at format rules instead of checking the live author guidelines
Output format
【Structure OK?】yes / fix: [...]
【Contribution visible by p.2?】yes / no
【Hedging level】appropriate / over-hedged
【Construct naming consistent】yes / fix
【Redundancy cut】[sections trimmed]
【Dual abstracts (≤125 each) + 5 keywords】present / fix
【Format vs. guidelines】APA author-date; verified on official page / to verify
【Next step】smj-submission
Templates & resources
