---
name: commres-writing-style
description: Use when drafting or polishing a Communication Research (CR) manuscript so it reads as cumulative social science, follows APA style, and fits the limits (manuscript no more than 45 double-spaced pages inclusive of references). Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.
---

# Writing Style (commres-writing-style)

A CR paper must read as **quantitative communication science**: a clear theory-to-hypotheses build, an
APA-formatted report, and discipline to the **45-page (double-spaced, inclusive of references)** limit
(检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). This skill is about reaching CR's readership and respecting the format —
not about generating claims.

## When to trigger

- Drafting the introduction, the "present study / hypotheses" paragraph, or final polish
- Over the page limit and needing to cut without losing the argument
- Writing the abstract
- Aligning citations/headings/statistics to APA before submission

## Write as cumulative social science

1. **Front-load the contribution.** By the end of the introduction the reader knows the question, the
   theory, the hypotheses, and why they matter to communication science. Don't make a reviewer dig.
2. **Theory → hypotheses → method → results → discussion.** Use the standard social-science arc; the
   introduction builds explicitly to **numbered hypotheses** (and RQs), which the Results test in order.
3. **Argument-first prose.** Lead with claims; use evidence to support them. Avoid "the data show…"
   without saying what they show and why it matters for the theory.
4. **Minimize subfield jargon** or define it on first use; spell out acronyms. CR is read across
   communication science, so a political-comm reader should follow a health-comm paper.
5. **Report results in APA.** Integrate statistics into prose per APA (M, SD, test with df, effect
   size, exact p); keep tense and notation consistent.

## Format to APA

- **Citations**: author-date per **APA**; one consistent style (manage with Zotero/BibTeX); references
  count toward the page limit.
- **Manuscript**: double-spaced; report statistics in line with APA (SDs and effect sizes where
  applicable). Verify the current file/format specifics on the SAGE author page.
- **Anonymize**: CR is **double-anonymized** — no author names/affiliations/acknowledgments in the
  main document **or** supplemental materials; write **self-citations in the third person**; strip file
  metadata; provide a separate title page.
- **Abstract**: concise statement of question, method, and finding (confirm the exact cap on the SAGE
  page — 待核实).

## Fit the page limit (≤ 45 double-spaced pages, inclusive of references)

- Move full specifications, robustness grids, scale items, and codebooks to the **online supplement**.
- Cut throat-clearing and literature dumps; engage the empirical debate, not every paper (see
  `commres-literature-positioning`).
- Prefer one decisive figure (a path diagram or simple-slopes plot) to three redundant tables.
- Keep the hypotheses tight; do not restate them verbatim in three places.

## Editor and referee expectations on prose (what trips the desk and the review)

CR is SAGE's quantitative social-scientific communication journal, so the editor reads the opening
pages asking one question fast: does this **test** a communication mechanism in a way that advances the
cumulative literature? The table maps common prose-level failure signals to what a CR editor infers
and the venue-specific fix.

| Prose signal the editor sees | What it reads as at CR | Social-science fix |
|------------------------------|------------------------|--------------------|
| Platform/dataset named before a communication process | "platform write-up, not a test" | open on the message/processing/effect process; platform is the site |
| No numbered hypotheses by the end of the intro | descriptive or under-theorized | build the intro to explicit H1…Hk (RQs where theory is thin) |
| Abstract reports a main effect but no mechanism | finding without a contribution | state the mediator/moderator the study tests |
| Results give stars but no effect sizes | not APA, not interpretable | report d/η²ₚ/β with CIs and substantive meaning |

## Worked micro-example: tightening a framing-effects abstract (illustrative)

A survey-experiment manuscript tests whether episodic vs. thematic news framing shifts blame
attribution. The first abstract reports only "framing had a significant effect (p < .05)." Walking it
through the rules: (1) add the **effect size and direction** — episodic framing raised individual-blame
attribution (illustrative d ≈ 0.4); (2) name the **mechanism tested** — the effect is mediated by
perceived personal responsibility (H2), advancing framing theory rather than re-demonstrating it; (3)
add the **boundary** — stronger for low-knowledge respondents (H3). The revised abstract states
question, design, the tested mechanism, and a magnitude — reading as cumulative science, not a
significance announcement.

## Anti-patterns

- An introduction that never reaches explicit, numbered hypotheses
- Burying the contribution; an abstract that hides the finding or omits the mechanism
- Reporting significance without effect sizes (an APA-reporting failure at CR)
- Mixed citation styles; first-person self-references that break anonymity
- Letting the manuscript drift over the 45-page limit because supplements were not used

## Output format

```
【Hypotheses stated by end of intro?】[Y/N]
【Reads as cumulative social science?】theory→H→method→results→discussion? [Y/N]
【Results in APA?】effect sizes + CIs/SDs, not stars only? [Y/N]
【Abstract】states question + design + mechanism + finding? cap confirmed?
【Length】≤ 45 double-spaced pp incl. references? [Y/N]
【APA + anonymized + third-person self-cites】[Y/N]
【Next】commres-transparency-and-data
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — page limit, APA reporting, Word format, anonymization