Revacc 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。
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill revacc-writing-styleAssembled 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 the prose is the bottleneck for a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) manuscript — front-loading the contribution, writing an abstract and introduction that land, and adopting the accounting house voice. Polishes the manuscript; it does not sharpen the contribution claim (revacc-contribution-framing) or build exhibits (revacc-tables-figures).
SKILL.md
4.6 KB, 918 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Writing Style (revacc-writing-style)
When to trigger
- The introduction buries the result under setup and literature
- The abstract describes the topic but not the finding or its implication
- The prose is passive, jargon-heavy, or reads like a finance paper that forgot the accounting
- An analytical paper drowns the intuition in notation before the reader sees the payoff
- You are doing the final pass and the manuscript voice does not match RAST's
Write the contribution first, everywhere
RAST's first-round-decision culture rewards a manuscript whose contribution is unmissable on page one. The intro should reach the result and its accounting implication within the first page — not after three pages of institutional background. Use the canonical accounting-paper intro arc, compressed:
- The accounting question in one or two sentences, with why it matters for reporting/markets.
- What you do — the setting, design or model, in one paragraph.
- What you find — the headline result with its economic magnitude (or the proposition with its accounting reading).
- Why it is credible — the identification or the modeling move, briefly.
- The contribution — what the field learns and the conversation it joins (one paragraph, not a list).
The abstract has to do real work
Within the journal's limit (~150–250 words, 待核实; 检索于 2026-06), the abstract must state the question, the design/data or the model, the finding with direction, and the implication. Cut "this paper examines"; lead with what is true. A topic-only abstract that withholds the result reads as thin to a journal that often decides in one round.
The accounting house voice
- Active and direct: "We find that mandatory disclosure reduces…" not "It is found that…".
- Construct discipline: define the accounting construct on first use and use it consistently; do not let "disclosure quality" drift between proxies mid-paper.
- Mechanism in the verbs: "tightens monitoring," "relaxes the covenant," "disciplines investment" — the channel should live in the prose, not only the hypotheses.
- Institutional precision without overload: give exactly the reporting/regulatory detail the result needs; relegate the rest.
- For analytical papers: intuition before algebra. State the result in words, then formalize; keep proofs in the appendix.
Sequence and scope
Polish prose last, after identification/model, exhibits, and contribution are settled — rewriting the intro around a result you may still rebuild wastes effort. On a near-final pass: read the intro aloud, ensure each results paragraph maps to a numbered exhibit, and confirm the abstract and intro tell the same story as the conclusion.
Checklist
- The result and its accounting implication appear on the first page of the intro
- The abstract states question, design/model, finding-with-direction, and implication within the limit
- Prose is active; "this paper examines" and empty hedges are cut
- The focal accounting construct is defined once and used consistently
- The channel/mechanism lives in the verbs, not just the hypothesis list
- Analytical sections give intuition before notation; proofs are in the appendix
- Abstract, intro, and conclusion tell one consistent story
Anti-patterns
- Buried lede: the finding arrives on page four after exhaustive background.
- Topic-only abstract: describes the area, withholds the result.
- Passive-voice fog: "it is documented that…" draining agency from the claim.
- Construct drift: the key term silently changes meaning across sections.
- Notation wall: an analytical paper that formalizes before the reader sees the point.
- Finance-in-disguise prose: the accounting payoff never surfaces in the writing.
Output format
【Intro arc】question → what we do → finding → credibility → contribution (all on p.1?)
【Abstract】question + design/model + finding-with-direction + implication; within limit (待核实)
【Voice】active? construct defined once? channel in the verbs?
【Analytical】intuition-before-notation? proofs in appendix?
【Consistency】abstract = intro = conclusion story
【Next skill】revacc-submission