Isr writing style

Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/Information-Systems-Research-Skills/skills/isr-writing-style

Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. ｜覆盖主流期刊的 Claude Code/Codex 期刊技能包，从选题、识别策略到表格规范与审稿回复全流程，助你快速发论文。

Install

npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill isr-writing-style

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Use when polishing the prose, structure, abstract, and notation of an Information Systems Research (ISR) manuscript — front-loading the IS contribution, writing for a sociotechnical and intradisciplinary readership, keeping the 300-word abstract and double-anonymized text, and following INFORMS author-date style. Late-stage polish; do not invoke while the contribution or identification/proof is still unsettled.

SKILL.md

4.9 KB, 960 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Writing Style (isr-writing-style)

When to trigger

The argument is sound but the prose buries it, is jargon-heavy, or is passive
The abstract is over length or does not state the contribution
Notation is inconsistent (analytical papers) or constructs drift (behavioral papers)
You need a final pass before isr-submission

Front-load the IS contribution

ISR readers span behavioral, economic, design-science, and organizational backgrounds, so the introduction must make the contribution to IS legible to all of them quickly: the phenomenon, why the IT artifact makes it an IS question, the gap/tension in a named IS conversation, what you do, and what you find. Do not make a reviewer reverse-engineer the point from the results. Because ISR is intradisciplinary, name the bridge you build (e.g., an economic lens on a behavioral phenomenon) early and in plain language.

Write for two audiences without losing either

In an analytical paper, give the intuition before the algebra — every key result should have a one-sentence plain-language reading so behavioral readers can follow it. In a behavioral paper, define constructs precisely and avoid undefined formalism. Multimethod papers should signpost transitions between methods and remind the reader how each piece serves the shared argument.

Abstract, notation, and consistency

Abstract: 300 words maximum. Lead with the phenomenon and contribution, not background.
Notation (analytical): define every symbol on first use; keep a consistent convention; never reuse a symbol for two meanings.
Constructs (behavioral): one name per construct throughout; hypothesis labels stable across text, tables, and figures.

INFORMS style and double-anonymization

Use the INFORMS author-date reference style: references alphabetized by author, with in-text citations by author name and year. Files are double-spaced, at least 11-point font, with one-inch margins on all four sides. Keep the text double-anonymized: remove names, affiliations, and identifying acknowledgments, and word self-citations neutrally so the prose does not reveal authorship.

Checklist

Intro front-loads the IS contribution and the intradisciplinary bridge
Intuition precedes algebra (analytical); constructs defined (behavioral)
Abstract ≤ 300 words and contribution-led
Notation/construct names consistent across text and exhibits
INFORMS author-date style; double-spaced, ≥11-pt, 1-inch margins
Text double-anonymized; self-citations neutral
Active voice; jargon minimized for a cross-paradigm readership

Anti-patterns

Buried lede: the contribution appears only in the discussion.
Algebra without intuition that loses behavioral readers.
Construct/notation drift between text and exhibits.
Identity leakage in acknowledgments or "our prior work" phrasing.

Style execution pass for Information Systems Research

Run this as a concrete capability pass. First lock the digital artifact or system, user/firm behavior, identification or design evidence, and IS-theory contribution; then test whether the manuscript addresses IS reviewers who expect digital-technology theory, empirical or design leverage, and implications for organizations or markets.

Primary move: Rewrite the opening and transitions so the venue-level claim, evidence object, and contribution are visible before technical detail; keep house-style limits tied to the source map.
Decision ledger: return claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
Sibling comparison: compare against MIS Quarterly for broader IS theory, Management Science for OR/MS generality, Journal of Management Information Systems for applied IS systems; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.

Output format

【Intro front-loading】contribution + bridge stated early? [...]
【Two-audience readability】intuition/definitions present? [...]
【Abstract】≤300 words, contribution-led? [...]
【Notation/construct consistency】[...]
【INFORMS style + format】author-date, spacing, margins: pass/fix
【Anonymization】pass/fix
【Next step】isr-submission