tar-writing-style

Writing Style & House Conventions (tar-writing-style)

When to trigger

• The intro buries the result; the reader cannot tell the finding by the end of page 2
• The prose is passive, jargon-laden, or written for a generic business audience
• References are in APA or a reference-manager default rather than Chicago
• The abstract exceeds 150 words or the manuscript leaks author identity
• A reviewer says "hard to follow," "what did you find?", or flags style issues

Write for the accounting reader, result first

TAR's audience is accounting researchers, editors, and a minimum of two expert reviewers. The intro

should, within the first page or two, state **the question, the setting/identification, the finding,

and the contribution** — do not make the reader wait for the result. Use the standard archival

structure (introduction, hypothesis/model development, research design, results, conclusion) and

keep terminology precise: "discretionary accruals," "abnormal audit fees," "cash effective tax

rate," "cost of equity capital" mean specific things — use them exactly.

TAR house style (verify against the AAA Manuscript Preparation Guide)

• Citations & references: The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.) — not APA. Configure your

reference manager to a Chicago author-date style and reconcile by hand.

• Spelling: Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.
• Abstract: no more than 150 words, beginning the article file; concrete about question,

setting, finding, and contribution — not a teaser.

• Manuscript format: 12-pt Times New Roman, double-spaced, 1-inch margins, serially numbered

pages; initial submission within the 55-page limit (including references, tables, figures,

appendices).

• AI disclosure statement: placed immediately after the abstract and before the body (drafted

here, finalized in tar-submission).

Anonymization is a writing task, not just a file task

Double-blind review means the prose itself must not identify the authors. Write self-citations in

the third person ("consistent with prior work (Author 2020)"), not "in our earlier study"; remove

acknowledgments, funding, institution names, and data-provider thank-yous from the manuscript body;

neutralize tell-tale phrasing that points to a known research group.

Prose discipline

• Prefer active voice and short declaratives; one idea per sentence.
• Define every construct at first use; avoid undefined acronyms.
• State hypotheses/predictions in plain directional terms.
• Be precise about causality in words (mirror the calibration from tar-contribution-framing).
• Cut throat-clearing ("It is important to note that...") and redundancy to protect the page budget.

Checklist

• [ ] The finding and contribution are stated on the first page or two
• [ ] References and citations follow Chicago (16th ed.), not APA
• [ ] Abstract ≤ 150 words and concrete (question, setting, finding, contribution)
• [ ] Accounting terminology is precise and consistent throughout
• [ ] Manuscript is anonymized in prose (third-person self-cites; no acknowledgments/funding inline)
• [ ] Format matches the AAA guide (12-pt TNR, double-spaced, 1-inch margins, numbered pages)
• [ ] AI disclosure statement drafted for placement after the abstract

Anti-patterns

• Buried lede: the result appears only in the results section.
• APA references straight from the reference manager (TAR uses Chicago).
• 150-word abstract overflow or a vague teaser abstract.
• Self-identifying prose ("our 2019 paper") defeating double-blind review.
• Imprecise accounting terms used loosely or interchangeably.
• Passive throat-clearing that wastes the 55-page budget.

Output format

【Lede】finding + contribution on page 1–2? yes/no
【House style】Chicago references? Webster spelling? format ok? yes/no
【Abstract】≤150 words and concrete? yes/no
【Anonymization (prose)】third-person self-cites; no inline acknowledgments? yes/no
【Terminology】accounting terms precise and consistent? yes/no
【AI disclosure】drafted for post-abstract placement? yes/no
【Next step】tar-submission