---

name: revedres-writing-style description: Use when drafting or revising prose, the 150-word abstract, and the introduction in the Review of Educational Research (RER) synthesizing voice and APA 7 style. Lands the integrative voice; it does not build the analytic spine (revedres-organizing-framework) or design exhibits (revedres-tables-figures).

Writing Style (revedres-writing-style)

When to trigger

• The framework and exhibits are settled and the prose needs to match the RER bar
• A draft summarizes study-by-study instead of synthesizing across studies
• The abstract is over 150 words or reads like a primary-research abstract
• The introduction buries the contribution or over-signposts

The RER voice: synthesize, do not summarize, for a broad education audience

RER is read across education and adjacent disciplines, not by one method club. The voice is comprehensive, critical, and integrative: authoritative about the field, fair to every camp, and accessible to a reader who does not already know this literature. The single most-punished move is prose that walks through one study per paragraph — "Smith (2019) found… Jones (2020) found…" — which is summary, not synthesis. Instead, organize paragraphs around claims, constructs, and tensions, citing clusters of studies as evidence for each.

The introduction arc

The opening should, in order:

1. Frame the field and the problem — what is at stake for learning, instruction, policy, or equity (in plain terms, for a broad reader).
2. Establish the need for a synthesis now — the growth, method shift, conflict, or missing frame that makes this the moment (the revedres-topic-selection "why now").
3. State the organizing question and the framework — the spine that is the contribution (revedres-organizing-framework), named up front.
4. State the bottom line early — what the integrated literature shows and what remains open; do not withhold it to the conclusion.
5. Brief roadmap — mirror the framework's cells, without over-signposting.

Synthesis-craft at the paragraph level

• Topic sentence = a claim about the field, then studies as support — not "Author X did Y."
• Reconcile, don't tally. When studies conflict, explain why (estimand, design, population), per revedres-comprehensiveness-and-balance.
• Carry credibility in the prose. "Two well-identified experiments… whereas weaker correlational work…" — weight, don't count.
• Steelman before critiquing. Give each perspective its strongest case before its limits.
• Critical, not neutral. RER wants critical synthesis: judge the field's methods and assumptions, name what it gets wrong, and label your own read.

RER house style (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)

• APA 7th edition throughout — citations, references, headings, tables, figures, and bias-free language.
• Abstract ≤ 150 words, with keywords; written as a review abstract (question → corpus/method → what the synthesis shows → implications), not a single-study abstract.
• Masked manuscript: a blinded title page in the main file; no identifying self-references in the body (anonymize only limited-circulation self-citations — keep ordinary published self-citations visible). See revedres-submission.
• Microsoft Word (not PDF); separate unblinded title page with APA-7 Author Note; Author Bios.

Checklist

• Paragraphs organized around claims/constructs/tensions, not one-study-per-paragraph
• Conflicting findings reconciled (why they differ), not vote-counted
• Credibility carried in the prose (weight by design quality, not count)
• Each perspective steelmanned before critique; author's own read labeled
• Introduction follows frame → why-now → spine → bottom-line-early → roadmap
• Abstract ≤ 150 words, review-style, with keywords
• APA 7 throughout (citations, references, headings, bias-free language)
• Manuscript masked correctly (blinded body; only limited-circulation self-cites anonymized)

Anti-patterns

• "Smith found… Jones found…" study-by-study march (summary, not synthesis)
• Withholding the bottom line until the conclusion (RER readers want it up front)
• A 250-word abstract or one written like a single-study report
• Neutral cataloguing with no critical judgment of the field's methods or assumptions
• Over-signposting ("In this section we will…") doing the work the argument should do
• Non-APA-7 citations/headings, or a draft that de-anonymizes the authors in the body

Output format

【Synthesis test】paragraphs by claim/construct/tension (not per-study)? Y/N
【Conflict handling】reconciled, not tallied? Y/N
【Intro arc】frame → why-now → spine → bottom-line-early → roadmap? Y/N
【Critical stance】field's methods/assumptions judged; author read labeled? Y/N
【Abstract】≤150 words, review-style, keywords? Y/N
【APA 7】citations/refs/headings/bias-free language conform? Y/N
【Masking】body blinded; only limited-circulation self-cites anonymized? Y/N
【Next step】→ revedres-transparency-and-reproducibility (coding reliability, open materials, MARS/PRISMA)