---

name: orgsci-writing-style description: Use when polishing the prose of an Organization Science manuscript — front-loading the organizational argument and contribution, writing for an interdisciplinary micro-to-macro audience, and conforming to INFORMS author-date house style. Late-stage polish; do not invoke while the theoretical contribution is still unsettled.

Writing Style (orgsci-writing-style)

When to trigger

• The prose buries the argument or the contribution
• The paper reads to only one audience (pure micro or pure macro) when it should reach both
• Citations and formatting are not in INFORMS author-date style
• You are doing a final polish before submission

Write for an interdisciplinary, micro-to-macro audience

Organization Science readers come from organization theory, strategy, sociology, economics, and psychology, and work at every level from individual to population. Write so that a macro reader follows a micro paper and vice versa: define constructs on first use, name the level of analysis explicitly, and translate discipline-specific jargon into organizational terms. The opening pages must make the organizational phenomenon, the conversation joined, and the contribution unmistakable — front-load the argument rather than withholding it until the discussion.

INFORMS house style

• Citations: author-date, e.g., Norman 1977 or (Norman 1977); reference list alphabetical by author in journal style.
• Format: double-spaced, 1-inch margins, Garamond- or Times-New-Roman-like fonts (explicitly no Helvetica Narrow); minimize footnotes; PDF or MS Word.
• Abstract: no more than 250 words.
• Anonymization: for double-anonymous review, remove author names, affiliations, and acknowledgements, and write self-citations in the third person or suppress them.
• Length: respect the all-inclusive ~50-page norm; tighten prose rather than spilling into the appendix what belongs in the argument.

Voice and structure

• Prefer active voice and a clear narrative line; the journal values readable theory.
• For inductive papers, let the data structure and process model anchor the narrative; for deductive papers, foreground the mechanism and propositions.
• State boundary conditions as part of the theory, not as hedging.
• Avoid effusive throat-clearing and avoid combative framing of prior work — engage it generously.

Anti-patterns

• A first page that withholds the contribution until page 30.
• Discipline jargon left untranslated for the cross-level audience.
• Passive, nominalized prose that hides who does what.
• Helvetica Narrow, numeric citation styles, or an over-250-word abstract.

Style execution pass for Organization Science

Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock a level map, a mechanism paragraph, and the cover-letter contribution statement; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: interdisciplinary organization reviewers who ask whether the mechanism travels across levels of analysis.

• Do the pass: Rewrite the first two pages so each paragraph starts from the venue-level claim, not from chronology or method inventory; preserve exact source-map limits and move technical overflow to appendix or supplement.
• Return a ledger: give claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.
• Sibling guard: compare against AMJ for empirical management framing, ASQ for organization-theory depth, Management Science for formal/quantitative operations; if a sibling owns the contribution, recommend re-routing before polishing format.
• Submission-ready gate: do not give final advice until the pack's resources/official-source-map.md has been checked for upload-week rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.

Cross-level paragraph test

For every major claim paragraph, mark three labels in the margin:

Label	Question
Level	Is this individual, team, organization, field, or population-level?
Mechanism	What process links this paragraph to the contribution?
Boundary	Where would this claim not travel?

If two consecutive paragraphs change level without a bridge sentence, add one. If a paragraph has no mechanism label, it is probably background. If the boundary is "all organizations," the claim is too broad for this journal's reviewers.

Output format

【Front-loading】phenomenon + conversation + contribution clear on page 1?
【Audience reach】readable to both micro and macro readers; jargon translated?
【House style】author-date, no Helvetica Narrow, abstract ≤250 words, anonymized
【Length/voice】within ~50-page norm; active, non-combative
【Cross-level test】level / mechanism / boundary labels resolved
【Next step】orgsci-submission