aerj-writing-style

Writing Style (aerj-writing-style)

An AERJ paper must read for the whole field of education research, not just specialists, and must comply with APA 7th edition. Write so a researcher from another subfield follows the argument, the stakes, and the contribution. Verify the current length and abstract limits on the official page.

When to trigger

• Drafting or tightening any section
• Bringing the manuscript into APA 7th-edition compliance
• Writing or trimming the 100–120-word abstract
• Cutting to fit the length limit while protecting the argument

Style facts (verify volatile items on the official page)

• Citation/reference style: APA 7th edition (author-date) throughout.
• Abstract: 100–120 words — state purpose, design/method, key findings, significance.
• Length: manuscript maximum 50 pages, double-spaced, 12-pt, 1" margins, inclusive of tables, figures, notes, and references.
• Masked: no author-identifying language; self-citations neutralized (see aerj-submission).

How to write for the field

1. Front-load the contribution. By the end of the introduction the reader knows the question, why it matters across the field, the approach, and the finding.
2. Translate jargon. Define subfield-specific terms; spell out the stakes for policy and/or practice in plain language.
3. One argument, signposted. Each section advances the through-line: framework → design → evidence → meaning. Use clear topic sentences.
4. Claims matched to evidence. Hedge appropriately; state scope conditions and limitations honestly — over-claiming draws reviewer fire.
5. Tight abstract. Within 100–120 words, get purpose, method, finding, and significance — no filler.
6. APA discipline. Consistent author-date citation, reference list, heading levels, and number/stat formatting per APA 7th.

Anti-patterns

• Burying the contribution after pages of setup
• Insider jargon with no translation for a general education-research reader
• Over-claiming beyond what the design supports; no scope conditions
• An abstract over 120 words or padded with background
• Inconsistent APA citations/headings; mixing reference styles

Prose expectations by manuscript section (AERJ referees)

A field-wide readership means every section must be legible to a non-specialist while staying APA-7 disciplined. Use this as a section-by-section prose audit.

Manuscript part	What reads well for AERJ's general audience	Reviewer-irritating tell
Introduction	Question, field-wide stake, approach, finding by page two	Pages of background before the contribution
Framework	Constructs defined in plain language, then operationalized	Theory jargon with no translation
Method	Design legible to outsiders; nesting and warrant stated	Acronyms assuming subfield fluency
Results	Effect sizes and intervals narrated, not just starred	"p < .05" prose with no practical meaning
Discussion	Scope conditions and equity/context stated honestly	Over-claiming beyond the design

Worked abstract vignette (illustrative)

A draft abstract for an evaluation of a formative-assessment coaching program runs 168 words and opens with two sentences of literature. Trimmed to AERJ's 100–120-word target, it becomes: purpose (test whether coaching shifts instruction and learning), method (cluster-randomized across 48 schools, multilevel models), finding (an illustrative 0.16 SD gain, 95% CI [0.05, 0.27], concentrated in high-need schools), significance (informs how districts target instructional support equitably). The filler background is gone; every clause earns its place. Confirm the exact word limit against the journal's current submission guidelines.

Referee pushback and the venue fix

• "This is hard to follow outside the subfield." → Translate each specialist term on first use; add the plain-language stake.
• "The claims outrun the evidence." → Hedge to what the design supports and state scope conditions.
• "Citations and headings are inconsistent." → Run a clean APA-7 author-date and heading pass before resubmission.

Output format

【Section reviewed】intro / framework / methods / results / discussion / abstract
【Contribution front-loaded?】[Y/N]
【Reads for the field?】jargon translated, stakes plain [Y/N]
【Abstract】word count (100–120)
【APA 7th compliant】citations + headings + stats [Y/N]
【Length】within limit (verify) [Y/N]
【Next】aerj-transparency-and-data-policy

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — APA 7th reference managers and typesetting (apa7 / papaja)
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — APA style, abstract, and length requirements