agentsclimarketplace

Jcf writing style

Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/Journal-of-Corporate-Finance-Skills/skills/jcf-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 jcf-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 drafting or polishing prose for a Journal of Corporate Finance (JCF) manuscript — the ≤250-word abstract, 1–7 keywords, author-date (Harvard) in-text citations, and the "your paper, your way" first-submission reference flexibility. It enforces JCF house conventions; it does not generate results.

SKILL.md

5.0 KB, ~1.0k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Writing Style (jcf-writing-style)

When to trigger

  • Writing or trimming the abstract and keywords
  • Setting in-text citation and reference style for first submission
  • Final language polish before submitting via Editorial Manager

JCF style facts (verified; re-confirm on the official guide)

  • Abstract ≤ 250 words. Avoid references in the abstract; define non-standard abbreviations at first mention.
  • 1–7 keywords required.
  • In-text citations are author-date (Harvard-style) — name and year in parentheses, e.g., (Campbell and Peden, 2005).
  • "Your paper, your way" at first submission: references may be in any consistent style as long as required elements (authors, titles, year, volume, pages/article number) are present; DOIs encouraged. Formal Elsevier reference styling is applied only at revision/acceptance.
  • A generative-AI disclosure is required at submission; AI use must be disclosed with human oversight.

Abstract recipe (≤250 words)

  1. The corporate-finance question and setting.
  2. The data and identification in one clause.
  3. The headline result with a magnitude.
  4. The mechanism / interpretation.
  5. The contribution / "so what."

No citations, no undefined abbreviations, no over-claiming.

Prose conventions

  • Clear, direct exposition; define each corporate-finance variable on first use.
  • State the design's limits honestly — single-anonymized reviewers see the authors and will not be impressed by spin.
  • Keep tense and notation consistent; spell out acronyms once.

Worked abstract (illustrative)

A compliant skeleton for a hypothetical governance paper — invented numbers, well under the 250-word cap:

We study whether mandated board independence changes corporate investment. Exploiting a governance
reform that forced a subset of firms to add independent directors, we estimate difference-in-differences
specifications with firm and industry-by-year fixed effects. Treated firms increase investment by 1.1
percentage points of assets — roughly 12 percent of the sample mean — with effects concentrated where
pre-reform boards were most insider-dominated. The evidence is consistent with independent directors
relaxing managerial conservatism rather than improving project selection. The results inform the debate
over one-size-fits-all board mandates.

Every sentence maps to the recipe: question, design, magnitude, mechanism, so-what — and there are no citations.

Introduction arc for a JCF paper

  • Paragraph 1: the corporate-finance decision and why it is unresolved — no literature dump.
  • Paragraph 2: the setting and identification in plain words; the reader should be able to referee the design from this paragraph alone.
  • Paragraph 3: headline results with magnitudes, in the order the tables deliver them.
  • Paragraph 4: mechanism evidence and which alternatives are ruled out.
  • Paragraph 5: contribution relative to the 2–3 closest papers (see jcf-literature-positioning).
  • Keep the intro lean; long royal-road introductions are a general-interest-journal habit that reads as padding at this venue.

Claim-calibration phrasebook

Match verbs to design strength — single-anonymized referees punish mismatches:

Evidence base                  | Allowed phrasing                   | Banned phrasing
Quasi-experiment + diagnostics | "causes", "leads to", "increases"  | nothing beyond the estimand's scope
IV with argued exclusion       | "consistent with a causal effect"  | unconditional "proves"
Matching / FE-only OLS         | "is associated with", "predicts"   | "causes", "drives"
Cross-sectional splits         | "consistent with the channel"      | "establishes the mechanism"
Calibrated theory              | "can rationalize", "implies"       | "demonstrates empirically"

When in doubt, the abstract takes the most conservative defensible verb; the body can argue for more.

Pre-submission language checklist

  • Abstract ≤ 250 words, no references, abbreviations defined
  • 1–7 keywords chosen for discoverability
  • In-text citations author-date; reference list internally consistent; DOIs added
  • Generative-AI disclosure drafted
  • Magnitudes (not just significance) appear in the abstract

Anti-patterns

  • An abstract over 250 words or padded with citations.
  • Mixed citation styles within one reference list.
  • Deferring all reference cleanup — even "your way" requires consistency and complete elements.
  • Undisclosed AI assistance.

Output

【Abstract】≤250w, no refs, abbrevs defined? [Y/N] — word count
【Keywords】1–7 chosen? [Y/N]
【Refs】author-date, consistent, DOIs? [Y/N]  【AI disclosure】[Y/N]

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.