jams-writing-style

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

【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