---
name: jim-writing-style
description: Use when drafting or revising the prose of a Journal of International Marketing (JIM) manuscript — the 200-word abstract, introduction architecture, precise culture language, and AMA-journal conventions. It polishes expression; substance fixes belong to the upstream skills.
---

# Writing in the JIM Voice (jim-writing-style)

## When to trigger

- The abstract exceeds 200 words or reads like a table of contents
- The introduction takes three pages to reach the research question
- Drafts slip into country stereotypes or use "culture" as an all-purpose noun
- The paper is written for methodologists when JIM's readership includes global marketing executives

## The abstract: 200 words, third person, decision-forward

JIM caps the abstract at **200 words**, written in third person (per the AMA/SAGE guidelines — re-check current wording before submission). Structure that works: one sentence of tension (what the field believed or disputed), one of approach (countries, data, design — numbers included), two or three of findings (directions *and* the cross-national pattern), one of the managerial rule. Kill throat-clearing ("This paper aims to explore…") and write findings as findings: "brand globalness lifts preference in emerging markets but not developed ones," not "the relationship between globalness and preference is examined."

## Introduction architecture (≤ 2 pages)

1. **The cross-border tension, concretely.** Open with the phenomenon a global marketer faces — divergent campaign results across markets, an entry decision, a standardization dilemma — or the theoretical inconsistency across country studies. Not with "Globalization has increased…" (the most deleted first sentence in the field).
2. **Why existing answers fail across borders.** Two or three moves: the domestic canon assumed universality; international evidence conflicts; the mechanism was never taken across an institutional boundary.
3. **What this paper does.** Question, countries and design in one breath, and the answer — JIM readers get the finding in the introduction, not a mystery novel.
4. **Contribution preview.** The ledger rows from `jim-contribution-framing`, compressed to a sentence each.

## Precision rules for writing about countries and cultures

- **Nation ≠ culture.** Write "consumers in our Japanese sample," not "the Japanese"; attribute differences to the measured dimension, not to nationality as essence.
- **Dimension language over stereotype language.** "In high uncertainty-avoidance markets" is a claim; "in cautious cultures like Germany" is a stereotype wearing a citation.
- **Anchor direction words.** "Higher collectivism" than what? Name the comparison explicitly the first time.
- **Home/host discipline.** Fix the perspective (whose home?) in the first use and never rotate it silently.
- **Translation transparency.** When quoting items or respondents, state the language of administration; italicize emic terms and gloss them once.
- **No development euphemism drift.** Pick one taxonomy (emerging vs. developed; income bands) and hold it; "third-world," never.

## Sentence-level moves that read as JIM

- Verbs carry the theory: mechanisms *amplify*, *suppress*, *substitute*, *signal* — they do not "play a role."
- One idea per sentence in the hypothesis build-up; the "because" clause gets its own sentence when the logic is subtle.
- Numbers in prose keep their context: "a 12% adaptation premium in weak-IP markets," not "a significant positive effect."
- Present tense for what the paper does and what theory says; past tense for what the data showed.
- Headings that assert ("Globalness Pays Only Where Institutions Are Weak") beat labels ("Results") where the template allows.
- Prune the double qualifier ("may potentially suggest") — one hedge per claim, chosen deliberately.

## AMA-journal surface conventions

Author–date citations in AMA marketing-journal style — e.g., (Katsikeas, Leonidou, and Morgan 2000); "and" spelled out, no ampersand in text; references formatted per the current JIM guidelines (re-check the SAGE author instructions rather than trusting a reference manager's "AMA" preset, which is the *medical* AMA style — a classic trap). First-person plural is acceptable and often cleaner than passive voice. Define each acronym at first use; CET, PBG, and MNE are not universal knowledge even here.

## Checklist

- [ ] Abstract ≤ 200 words, third person, findings and managerial rule explicit
- [ ] Introduction reaches the question within two paragraphs, answer disclosed
- [ ] Every country difference in prose attributed to a dimension, not a nationality
- [ ] Home/host perspective and development taxonomy consistent throughout
- [ ] Hypothesis prose: one idea per sentence, explicit because-clauses
- [ ] Citations in marketing-AMA author–date form, not medical-AMA numeric
- [ ] No "globalization has increased" opener; no role-playing verbs

## Anti-patterns

- Stereotype shorthand ("collectivist consumers like the Chinese") passing as cultural theory
- The mystery-novel structure that withholds findings until page 30
- Abstract listing topics covered instead of results found
- Reference list auto-formatted in numeric medical-AMA style
- Hedging stacked three deep until the claim disappears
- Translationese from a non-English drafting language left unedited — recruit a native-level pass before submission

## Output format

```text
【Abstract】word count / third person / findings + managerial rule present: pass/fix
【Intro】tension → failed answers → question + answer → contributions: pass/fix
【Culture language】dimension-attributed, stereotype-free: pass/fix
【Consistency】home-host, taxonomy, acronyms: pass/fix
【Citations】marketing-AMA author–date verified: pass/fix
【Next skill】jim-submission
```