---
name: smj-writing-style
description: Use for late-stage prose polish of a Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) manuscript — clarity, structure, and house style. Improves the writing; it does not change the theory, analysis, or contribution claim.
---

# Writing Style & House Conventions (smj-writing-style)

## When to trigger

- Theory, analysis, and contribution are settled and you are polishing the full draft
- Prose is jargon-heavy, hedged, or buries the argument
- Section structure does not follow the expected strategy-empirical arc
- Reviewers flagged readability, redundancy, or an unclear through-line

> Polish late. Editing prose while the identification strategy or contribution is unsettled wastes effort — return to the earlier skills first.

## Expected structure (full empirical paper)

Introduction → Theory & Hypotheses → Methods (sample, measures, identification) → Results → Discussion (contribution, implications, limitations, future research) → References. Theory-building qualitative and formal papers vary this arc but still foreground the strategy contribution early.

- **Introduction** does heavy lifting: motivate, name the conversation, state the gap and the contribution, preview the design and findings. A reader should know your contribution by the end of page two.
- **Discussion** must add interpretation, not re-list results: what the findings mean for strategy theory, boundaries, honest limitations, and a forward agenda.

## Style rules SMJ readers reward

- **Argument-first sentences.** Lead with the claim; supporting detail follows. Avoid burying the point at the end of a long clause.
- **Active, precise verbs.** "We show / we find / the design rules out" beats "it could be argued that there may be a relationship."
- **Define constructs once, use consistently.** Do not switch between near-synonyms for the same variable.
- **Hedge only where warranted.** Over-hedging ("may possibly suggest a potential tendency") reads as weak evidence; state what the design supports and stop.
- **Signpost.** Each section opens by stating its job and how it connects to the argument.
- **Cut redundancy.** Intro, theory, and discussion should not repeat the same paragraphs; each advances the argument.
- **Strategy vocabulary, used correctly.** Use field terms (rents, isolating mechanisms, dynamic capabilities, governance) precisely — misuse signals an outsider.

## House conventions (verify current Author Guidelines)

- **Two abstracts**, each up to **125 words**: a *research summary* (precise, stands alone, no citations) **and** a *managerial summary* (plain, non-academic, for practitioners). This dual-summary requirement is distinctive to SMJ — AMJ and ASQ ask for a single abstract — so budget real time for the managerial summary.
- **Five (5) keywords** for indexing.
- **APA author-date** references ("(Author, 2021)"; "(Collins, 2005a, 2005b)") — set your citation manager to APA, not a default style.
- Respect the page budget (full articles ~40 pages incl. tables/figures/references; short research articles ~20 — verify the current limit on the official page); references single-spaced to conserve space.
- US spelling and standard academic register; expand acronyms on first use.

## Checklist

- [ ] Contribution is clear by the end of the introduction's second page
- [ ] Structure follows intro → theory → methods → results → discussion (or a justified variant)
- [ ] Sentences lead with the claim; verbs are active and precise
- [ ] Constructs are defined once and named consistently throughout
- [ ] Hedging is proportionate to the evidence
- [ ] No paragraph is repeated across intro/theory/discussion
- [ ] Discussion interprets (theory implications + limits + agenda), not re-lists
- [ ] Both summaries written: research summary (≤125 words) AND managerial summary (≤125 words); 5 keywords
- [ ] References in APA author-date style; headings/length match current SMJ guidelines (verified, not assumed)

## Anti-patterns

- Submitting one abstract when SMJ requires two (research + managerial); a managerial summary written in academic jargon
- A bland abstract that hides the contribution
- Throat-clearing introductions that delay the point for two pages
- Over-hedged prose that makes solid findings read as tentative
- Inconsistent construct naming across sections
- A discussion that restates the results table in prose
- Misused strategy jargon that signals the author is outside the field
- Guessing at format rules instead of checking the live author guidelines

## Output format

```
【Structure OK?】yes / fix: [...]
【Contribution visible by p.2?】yes / no
【Hedging level】appropriate / over-hedged
【Construct naming consistent】yes / fix
【Redundancy cut】[sections trimmed]
【Dual abstracts (≤125 each) + 5 keywords】present / fix
【Format vs. guidelines】APA author-date; verified on official page / to verify
【Next step】smj-submission
```

## Templates & resources

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — SMJ dual-abstract, 5-keyword, APA reference, and page-limit rules