Writing Style (amj-writing-style)

When to trigger

• The argument is buried under jargon, hedging, or passive constructions
• The introduction does not make the contribution clear in its first page
• Section logic wanders; the reader cannot follow the theory → method → results → discussion arc
• Sentences are long and nominalized; the "actor doing the action" is hidden
• This is late-stage polish after the theory, design, and contribution are settled

The AMJ prose standard

AMJ values prose that is rigorous yet readable: the theoretical argument should be visible to a reader from another division. Front-load the point — say what you argue, then support it. Write in the active voice with human/organizational actors as subjects. Hedge precisely (state what the data show), not defensively (avoid stacking "may possibly suggest"). AMJ's From the Editors (FTE) series has devoted whole editorials to storytelling and crafting the introduction — the journal genuinely rewards a paper that "tells a story," so treat narrative arc as a substantive standard, not decoration.

Structure to enforce

Standard full structure: Introduction → Theory & Hypotheses → Methods → Results → Discussion. Each section earns its place: