From tar-skills
Routes to specialized tar-* skills for writing a The Accounting Review (TAR) manuscript, from topic selection through rebuttal.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/tar-skills:tar-workflowThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill; it tells you **which tar-* skill to use right now** for your TAR manuscript.
This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill; it tells you which tar- skill to use right now* for your TAR manuscript.
Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as The Accounting Review (TAR) — the flagship journal of the American Accounting Association (AAA, aaahq.org), covering archival/empirical and analytical accounting across financial accounting, capital markets, auditing and assurance, management accounting, taxation, and accounting information systems. TAR's stated policy is explicitly open to all rigorous research methods and names no preferred methodology; the single overriding publication criterion is the significance of the contribution to the accounting literature. In practice the published mix is dominated by large-sample archival/empirical work, alongside a substantial experimental stream and analytical/theory papers (待核实 as a characterization, not policy). The action editor and a minimum of two reviewers will ask "what do we learn about accounting that we did not know?" as hard as "is identification clean?"
Editorial team: Senior Editor Mohan Venkatachalam (Duke, Fuqua) — sitting since June 2026, succeeding Kathryn Kadous (Emory); named Lead Editors (Hribar, Maydew, Mittendorf, Rennekamp) handle assignments, decision letters, desk rejections, and appeals; Ad hoc Editors cover specialized topics/methods. Submission fee ($270 member / $645 non-member) and full roster — 待核实; confirm on the official AAA pages.
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Idea is vague; not sure it is contribution-driven or TAR-fit | tar-topic-selection |
| Predictions are descriptive; no economic mechanism or model | tar-theory-development |
| Front end reads as gap-spotting; the accounting conversation not joined | tar-literature-positioning |
| Design may not identify the effect (endogeneity, selection, timing) | tar-methods |
| Have data; unsure about estimator, clustering, FE, robustness | tar-data-analysis |
| Results exist but the "so what for accounting" is thin | tar-contribution-framing |
| Tables/figures cluttered, off Chicago style, or not self-explanatory | tar-tables-figures |
| Prose is jargon-heavy, passive, or buries the result | tar-writing-style |
| Ready to submit; need the Editorial Manager preflight | tar-submission |
| Want to understand how TAR double-blind review/decisions work | tar-review-process |
| Received an R&R; need to plan and draft the response | tar-rebuttal |
tar-topic-selection — lock a contribution-driven question with TAR fittar-theory-development — build the economic mechanism / analytical model and predictionstar-literature-positioning — engage the focal accounting literature; state the conversationtar-methods — design identification (DiD, IV, RDD, setting, shock) matched to the questiontar-data-analysis — estimator, fixed effects, clustering, robustness, data-authenticity codetar-contribution-framing — turn results into an explicit accounting contributiontar-tables-figures — finalize main exhibits in Chicago house styletar-writing-style — full-manuscript prose polish (result front-loaded, active voice)tar-submission — Editorial Manager preflight (anonymization, AI disclosure, ORCID, files)tar-review-process — set expectations for double-blind, multi-round reviewtar-rebuttal — after an R&R, plan revisions then draft the response letter
tar-tables-figuresandtar-writing-styleare late-stage polish. Do not invoke them while identification or the contribution is still unsettled — you will polish an argument you may still have to rebuild.
tar-topic-selection then tar-contribution-framingtar-literature-positioningtar-methods then tar-data-analysistar-data-analysis (data-authenticity)tar-theory-developmenttar-submissiontar-review-process then tar-rebuttalIf your study is purely a methods demonstration with no accounting contribution, TAR is the wrong venue.
tar-theory-development and report a correlation — TAR rejects atheoretical "regression-mining."tar-tables-figures beautify exhibits before identification and the contribution are settled.tar-rebuttal draft a response letter before you have actually revised the manuscript and the code.tar-writing-style as a substitute for a clean identification strategy or a real contribution.npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin tar-skillsRoutes manuscript work for Journal of Accounting Research from topic selection through rebuttal by invoking appropriate jar-* sub-skills.
Explains TAR's tiered editor structure, double-blind two-reviewer model, decision types (desk reject, reject, R&R), and post-publication integrity rules. Use when reading a TAR decision letter or setting expectations.
Evaluates accounting manuscripts for fit, framing, method rigor, and desk-reject risk at The Accounting Review (TAR). Activates when TAR is the target venue.