--- name: jams-writing-style description: Use when shaping the prose, abstract, and introduction of a Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (JAMS) manuscript so the dual theory-and-managerial contribution lands in the journal's voice. Polishes exposition; it does not state the contribution (jams-contribution-framing) or run the submission preflight (jams-submission). --- # Writing Style (jams-writing-style) ## When to trigger - The introduction buries the idea, or opens with literature instead of the phenomenon - The abstract reads like a method summary with no contribution or managerial payoff - A reviewer says the paper is "hard to follow" or "the contribution is unclear" - The discussion section lists implications generically with no decision attached - This is late-stage polish — theory, design, and the takeaway are already settled ## The JAMS voice: rigorous, but legible to a manager JAMS prose carries strong method while staying readable to a marketing academic *and* a thoughtful practitioner. The register is precise but not opaque — jargon and notation earn their place only when they sharpen the argument. The journal's identity is the **bridge between marketing science and marketing practice**, and the writing has to keep both readers in the room. Write so a CMO could follow the implications and a methodologist could trust the rigor. ## Build the introduction in the JAMS arc A strong JAMS introduction does five things, in order: 1. **Open on the marketing phenomenon / managerial puzzle** — a real, consequential question, not a literature gap on its own. 2. **State the gap** in the relevant marketing-science stream (theoretical, empirical, *and* managerial). 3. **State the contribution explicitly — both halves.** One sentence on the theoretical advance, one on the managerial advance. Do not make the reader infer them. 4. **Preview the approach** — the framework, the data/design, and what is estimated — in a few sentences. 5. **Preview the findings and their managerial magnitude** — the headline result in real units. Write the introduction and abstract **last**, after results stabilize, so the promises match the paper. ## Abstract and section discipline - **Abstract:** state question, framework, method, key finding (with magnitude), and the managerial implication — a compact arc, not a method recital. Follow JAMS/Springer length and structure conventions (typically ~200–250 words; structured per house convention — 检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). - **Hypotheses:** number them, state them as testable sentences, and keep the wording identical across intro, model figure, hypotheses section, and results. - **Discussion:** lead with the theoretical contribution, then a substantive **managerial implications** subsection that names decisions and magnitudes (JAMS readers expect this section to be real), then limitations and future research. - **Construct consistency:** one name per construct throughout; do not let a construct drift between synonyms. ## Sentence-level moves that read as "JAMS" - **Lead paragraphs with the claim, then the support.** Topic sentence states the point; the rest of the paragraph evidences it. Reviewers skim topic sentences first. - **Active voice for the contribution** ("We show that…", "Our framework predicts…"); reserve passive for routine procedure. - **Translate statistics into substance in the prose**, not just the table — "the effect is large (β = .38), implying roughly a [X]% lift in retention," so the reader meets the magnitude in words. - **Quarantine jargon and acronyms:** define each construct once, then use the same plain label; do not stack three acronyms in one sentence. - **Hypothesis recaps in results:** restate the hypothesis verbatim before reporting whether it was supported, so the reader is not flipping back to the hypotheses section. ## Tighten the managerial implications section This subsection is where JAMS papers are most often weakest. Make it concrete: - Open each implication with the **decision maker and the decision** ("For a sales manager allocating effort across accounts…"). - Quantify the **stake** in the unit that manager uses, drawn from your effect sizes. - State the **condition** under which the advice holds (your moderator becomes the guardrail). - Avoid the generic close ("managers should monitor X and invest accordingly") — if a sentence would fit any marketing paper, cut it. ## Section flow JAMS readers expect The conventional empirical JAMS article moves: introduction → theoretical background / conceptual development (with the hypotheses and the model figure) → method → results → general discussion (theoretical contribution, managerial implications, limitations, future research). Keep transitions explicit so the argument is one continuous thread — each section should open by saying what it does for the contribution, and the results should be read back against the hypotheses in order. Conceptual papers replace method/results with the framework and propositions, but still close on theory plus managerial reading. A paper that reads as disconnected modules — a method section with no tie to the hypotheses, a discussion that introduces new claims — is a frequent exposition complaint. ## Checklist - [ ] Introduction opens on the phenomenon/managerial puzzle, not a bare gap - [ ] Both contributions stated explicitly in the intro (theory + managerial) - [ ] Abstract states finding with magnitude and a managerial implication - [ ] Hypotheses numbered and worded identically everywhere they appear - [ ] Discussion has a real managerial-implications subsection with decisions/magnitudes - [ ] Construct names consistent throughout; jargon kept legible - [ ] Intro and abstract written/finalized after results settled - [ ] Sections connect as one argument; discussion introduces no new claims ## Anti-patterns - An introduction that opens with "The literature on X has grown…" instead of the phenomenon - An abstract that summarizes methods but never states the contribution or magnitude - A managerial-implications section that is generic ("managers should monitor X") - Construct names drifting between synonyms across sections - Hypothesis wording that differs between the model figure and the results - Notation-heavy prose where plain language would carry the idea ## Output format ```text 【Intro arc】phenomenon → gap → dual contribution → approach → findings: pass/fix 【Dual contribution stated】theory + managerial both explicit? yes/fix 【Abstract】finding + magnitude + managerial implication; length/structure ok? pass/fix 【Hypotheses】numbered + consistent wording everywhere? pass/fix 【Discussion】real managerial-implications subsection? pass/fix 【Construct consistency】one name per construct? pass/fix 【Next skill】jams-submission ```