worlddev-writing-style

Writing Style (worlddev-writing-style)

When to trigger

• The intro opens with a methods or literature gap rather than a development problem
• The prose is dense with one discipline's jargon (econometrics or critical-theory) and shuts out the rest
• The abstract reports techniques but not the "so what for development"
• The discussion stops at "we find X" without saying what it means for policy or practice
• The paper reads as written for the author's subfield, not for WD's global, cross-disciplinary audience

Writing for the WD reader

WD is read by economists, political scientists, sociologists, geographers, public-health and practice communities, and policymakers across the global South and North. The house voice is clear, evidence-driven, and accessible across disciplines without being shallow. Two failure modes bracket it: economics papers that read as technical reports with no human or institutional texture, and critical/qualitative papers that disappear into theoretical vocabulary. The WD register sits between — rigorous, but legible to a reader from the next discipline over and useful to someone who must act on the finding.

The intro WD rewards (a sequence)

1. Open on the development problem in the world — concrete, with stakes (who, where, why it matters), not a literature gap.
2. The tension or puzzle — what is unsettled, contested, or surprising in current understanding.
3. What you do and find, in one paragraph, in plain language and real magnitudes.
4. How you know it — the design or inferential logic, stated plainly, not buried in citations.
5. Why it matters for development — the contribution to understanding AND to policy/practice. WD intros that skip this read as venue-mismatched.

Abstract discipline (verify limits)

• ≤250 words (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准); 3–6 keywords, in English.
• Unstructured, single paragraph; state purpose, approach, key result with magnitude, and the development implication.
• Avoid undefined abbreviations and in-text references; the abstract must stand alone.
• Lead with the finding and its stakes, not the method. A WD abstract that never states what was learned about development is a desk-screen risk.

Cross-disciplinary legibility

• Define discipline-specific terms on first use; assume the reader is smart but from another field.
• Prefer plain causal language calibrated to the warrant ("we find evidence that…", "is associated with…") over both econometric hedging and unearned certainty.
• Name the country/region and context early and concretely; WD readers expect grounded place, not "a developing country."
• Translate every headline number into something a non-economist feels — share of household income, days of schooling, distance to a clinic.

A worked rewrite (illustrative)

Weak: "We exploit a regression-discontinuity design to estimate the LATE of a transfer on log consumption." WD: "Did a national cash-transfer program actually reach the poorest, and did it change their lives? Comparing households just above and below the program's eligibility cutoff in [country], we find consumption rose 18% for those just inside — enough to move a typical family above the food-poverty line — while the very poorest, who lacked the documents to enroll, were left out." Same design; now a cross-disciplinary reader and a policymaker both stay.

Checklist

• [ ] Intro opens on a development problem with stakes, not a literature gap
• [ ] Method stated plainly; jargon from any single discipline is defined or removed
• [ ] Every headline number is translated into human/policy-relevant terms
• [ ] Discussion states the implication for policy or practice, not just the finding
• [ ] Abstract ≤250 words, 3–6 keywords, finding-first, stands alone (limits re-verified)
• [ ] Country/region/context named concretely and early
• [ ] Causal language matches the warrant established in identification

Anti-patterns

• A literature-gap opening that delays the development stakes to page 3
• One-discipline jargon (technical econometrics OR dense critical theory) that excludes the rest of the readership
• A discussion that restates results without a "so what for whom"
• An abstract that lists methods but never states what was learned about development
• "A developing country" abstraction instead of a named, situated context

Output format

【Journal】World Development (WD)
【Skill】worlddev-writing-style
【Verdict】reader-ready / revise
【Intro opening】development problem / literature gap (fix if the latter)
【Abstract】≤250 words, finding-first, stands alone? [Y/N]
【Cross-disciplinary legibility】jargon defined; numbers translated? [Y/N]
【Policy implication】present in discussion? [Y/N]
【Source status】verified URL / 待核实 / not asserted
【Next skill】worlddev-replication-package