📖 《把 AI 当助手——经济实证研究的诚信、方法与工具》双语网页版:每章中文部在前,English Edition 在后,内容与最新合订 PDF 一致。

第11章 · 论文写作：学术风格与 AI 披露

学习目标

完成本章后，你应当能够：

1. 用 Bhattacherjee 16 章骨架（IMRaD 变体）搭建论文结构

2. 对照四风格表判断自己论文的风格定位并匹配投稿出口

3. 用 cn-academic-humanizer 去 AI 腔，用期刊 skill（mw-style/cre-style）做口径校准

4. 写出三版 AI 使用声明（开题/投稿/答辩）

5. 复述研究道德四准则并完成投稿前诚信总自查

[提示] 本章在全手册的位置：这是“研究环”的收口章。第 0 章你从 Wallace 科学环出发，一路走完选题（第 3 章）、设计（第 4 章）、数据（第 5–6 章）、收集（第 7 章）、描述（第 8 章）、实证（第 9 章）、案例（第 10 章），手里已经有了结果。第 11 章只解决最后一问：怎么把它写成一篇“像样”的论文，以及 AI 帮你写到什么程度必须声明。

➤ 本章的核心新增是学术风格四分化（实证/调研/案例/理论）。前面十章教你“怎么做研究”，本章第一次正面回答“你做的到底是哪一种论文、该投哪里”——学生投稿失配，八成不是因为写得差，而是因为不知道自己写的是哪种文体。

---

§11.1 论文结构：从 IMRaD 骨架到四类范式

Bhattacherjee 骨架（IMRaD 变体）——学硕与冲击 CSSCI 者的公共底座

社会科学论文的标准骨架，本质是 IMRaD（Introduction–Methods–Results–and–Discussion）的展开变体。六个板块：

表 11.1 Bhattacherjee 骨架（IMRaD 变体）——学硕与冲击 CSSCI。

L3|L3|L3

板块 & 回答的问题 & 写作要点
1. 引言 & 为什么值得做？ & 问题 + 动机 + 贡献预告。三段式：现实/理论缺口 → 本文做什么 → 三点边际贡献
2. 文献综述 & 你和谁对话？ & 理论对话 + gap 识别。不是文献罗列，是“前人做到哪、还差哪一步、我补哪一步”
3. 理论与假设 & 凭什么这么预测？ & 理论框架图（第 4 章 §4.6 的产出）+ 假说推导。每条假说要有文献支撑（S4.1）
4. 方法 & 怎么识别？ & 数据（来源+样本）+ 变量（被解释/解释/控制的操作化）+ 模型（计量方程或案例设计）
5. 结果 & 发现了什么？ & 主检验 + 稳健性。表格三线化，正文只讲“说明了什么”，不复读数字
6. 讨论与结论 & 所以呢？ & 理论贡献 + 实践启示 + 局限 + 未来方向。局限要诚实写，别写“数据有限”这种废话\

[重点] 写作顺序 ≠ 呈现顺序。骨架是读者读的顺序，不是你写的顺序。推荐写作顺序见 §11.3。

与四类范式骨架对照（金融专硕路线，附录 F 速查预告）

学硕与冲 CSSCI 的专硕用上面的 IMRaD 骨架；金融专硕（MF/农村金融）学位论文按学院《金融专硕学习指南》的四类范式组织（详见附录 F）。四类范式与 IMRaD 的关键差异：

表 11.2 与四类范式骨架对照（金融专硕路线，附录 F 速查预告）。

L3|L3|L3

范式 & 结构骨架 & 与 IMRaD 的差异
调研报告 & 导论→概念与理论→调查方案设计→描述性分析→计量分析→结论建议 & 多一章“调查方案设计与信效度分析”；不强制假说，重事实呈现
产品/服务设计 & 导论→概念与理论→需求与市场分析→设计与定价（核心）→合同/可行性/风险→结论 & 核心章是“设计与定价”，是创造性综合信息处理，不是因果检验
解决方案 & 导论→概念与理论→现状与效果评价→问题诊断与根源分析→方案设计→有效性→结论（七章“诊断—处方”） & 强调“辩证法思维”：先评价现状再诊断问题，多因分析 + 处方设计
案例分析 & 导论→概念与理论→研究设计与方法→案例背景与过程→案例分析→结论启示 & 案例背景是客观描述不带价值判断；分析章对接第 10 章 Eisenhardt/Yin 方法\

图 11.1 IMRaD 公共底座 + 四范式骨架——实证 / 综述 / 案例 / 理论分枝，各携典型期刊。

△  学院硬规定（源 11 采集）：金融专硕论文体裁四分——产品设计/解决方案、调研报告、案例分析、学术型论文，且学院不鼓励学术型学位论文；必须有两个主体章节，全文**≥4 万字**（学校格式规范写 3 万字，学院从严）。学硕无此约束，可直接走 IMRaD。

你该用哪套？

• 学硕 / 想发 CSSCI 的专硕 → IMRaD 骨架（六板块）

• 专硕毕业学位论文（不冲发表） → 附录 F 四类范式之一

• 合流点：专硕里“调研报告”范式升级到发表水平 = §11.2 的调研风格；“案例分析”范式升级 = 案例风格（研究案例轨）。升级动作见 §11.2 决策表。

---

§11.2 学术风格四分化 ★★（本章核心）

📐 结构图示（书版示意图的文字要点）

1. tikzpicture
2. 实证风格
3. 关键词：
4. 数据：
5. 方法：
6. 典型刊：
7. 评审预期：
8. 调研风格

图 11.2 学术风格四分化卡片——从问题形态到典型期刊的四向映射；右上角三问定位详见 §11.2 续表。

为什么需要风格分化

学术性论文不是一种文体走天下。《经济研究》上一篇 DID 因果识别论文，和《中国农村观察》上一篇村庄调研论文，从问题形态、数据形态、方法、结构重心到评审预期完全不同。学生最常见的投稿失败，不是“写得差”，而是**“拿调研风格的稿子去投实证风格的刊”**——问题形态和评审预期对不上，第一轮就被刷。

所以动笔前你必须先回答：我写的是哪一种论文？

四风格对照表（必背 · 定位你的论文）

表 11.3 四风格对照表（必背 · 定位你的论文）。

L5|L5|L5|L5|L5

维度 & 实证风格 & 调研风格 & 案例风格 & 理论风格
问题形态 & 因果/净效应（X 对 Y 的影响） & 现状/机制/问题辨析（是什么+为什么） & 过程/机制（How/Why） & 概念/范式/体系（应然与逻辑）
数据形态 & 大样本微观/面板（官方或商业库） & 田野调查/多村多点观察 & 单/多案例深描（访谈+档案+观察三角） & 文献 + 思想实验
方法 & DID / IV / RDD / PSM / FE + 机制 + 异质性 & 描述统计 + 典型事实 + 机制归纳（可含简单回归佐证） & Eisenhardt/Markus 范式 + 扎根编码 & 理论建模/思想史/范式比较
结构重心 & 识别策略 + 稳健性 & 事实呈现 + 成因剖析 & 理论对话 + 证据链 + 理论贡献 & 逻辑演绎 + 文献对话
评审预期 & 因果识别干净、机制可信 & 事实扎实、洞察独到 & 理论贡献清晰、方法规范 & 逻辑严密、增量明确
典型出口 & 《经济研究》《金融研究》《中国农村经济》 & 《中国农村观察》传统 & 《管理世界》《管理科学学报》 & 《经济研究》《经济学动态》
代表底本 & 数字普惠金融系列（金融研究等） & 黄祖辉 2012 / 邓衡山等合作社系列 & 许晖 2024 华龙一号 / 毛基业张霞 2008 & 冯兴元 2004 局部知识范式
对应讲义章 & 第 9 章 & 第 7+8 章 & 第 10 章 & 第 2 章（选修深化）
AI 诚信重点 & S9.1–S9.4（p-hacking/可复现） & S5.2/S7.1–S7.2（抽样诚实/调查伦理） & S10.1–S10.2（访谈真实/编码披露） & S2.1（不虚构理论关系）\

怎么“模仿”一种风格

判断完自己属于哪种风格后，最有效的学习不是看写作教程，而是精读 2–3 篇该风格的顶刊代表作，逐段拆文体：

• 实证风格：拆它的“识别策略”怎么讲清楚（为什么 DID 干净、平行趋势怎么验、机制怎么排除替代解释）。底本：数字普惠金融系列（《金融研究》替代互补、FIGI-DID 等）。

• 调研风格：拆它怎么用“典型事实 + 描述统计”支撑一个机制判断，而不靠回归。底本：黄祖辉 2012、邓衡山合作社系列（《中国农村观察》）。

• 案例风格：拆它的标题通式（研究对象的模式与机制——基于“XX”的探索性案例研究）与“理论对话—证据链—理论贡献”三段。底本：许晖 2024 华龙一号、毛基业张霞 2008。

• 理论风格：拆它怎么从一个概念缺口推出一套逻辑，增量在哪。底本：冯兴元 2004 局部知识范式。

[重点] 所有代表底本在正式引用前，题录一律经 Zotero 核实（S3.1/S3.2；黄祖辉 2012、邓衡山系列为间接验证条目，引用前补 DOI）。精读方法复用第 3 章 §3.6 五要素、第 10 章 §10.9–§10.11 精读坊。

---

§11.2（续）风格选择决策表：三问定位你的论文

学生自查三问决策树

不确定自己是哪种风格？按下面三个问题走一遍，落到哪个叶子就是哪种风格：

① 你的研究问题是「影响/效应」（因果）
   还是「机制/过程」（How/Why）
   还是「是什么/为什么如此」（描述+辨析）？
        |
        +- 因果 -----------------> ②a
        +- How/Why 过程 ---------> ②b
        +- 描述/辨析 ------------> ②c

②a 大样本因果数据可得吗？
     +- 可得 --------------> 【实证风格】（第 9 章路线）
     +- 不可得但个案有张力 --> 转 ②b

②b 目标是教学价值还是理论贡献？
     +- 理论贡献 --> 【案例风格】（第 10 章研究案例轨）
     +- 教学价值 --> 【教学案例】（第 10 章教学案例轨 + 附录 F 范式 + 教指委出口）

②c 有田野多点观察吗？
     +- 有 --------------> 【调研风格】（第 7+8 章路线，《中国农村观察》传统）
     +- 纯概念思辨 ------> 【理论风格】（学硕选修深化）

三问的本质：问题类型 × 数据形态 × 目标出口

表 11.4 三问的本质：问题类型 × 数据形态 × 目标出口。

L3|L3|L3

你的情况 & 落点风格 & 关键约束
因果问题 + 大样本面板可得 & 实证 & 必须做稳健性 + 机制（S9.1–S9.4）
因果问题 + 只有个案 + 有理论张力 & 案例（研究案例轨） & 必须有理论对话，不能停在“案例描述”（毛基业 2008）
描述/辨析 + 多村多点田野 & 调研 & 事实扎实、洞察独到；抽样诚实（S5.2）
描述/辨析 + 纯文献思辨 & 理论 & 逻辑严密、增量明确；不虚构理论关系（S2.1）
教学价值导向（供课堂讨论） & 教学案例 & 决策张力 + 使用说明双件套（第 10 章）\

学硕风格 × 专硕范式完整谱系

• 学硕：四风格任选（理论风格为选修深化）——Bhattacherjee 骨架（§11.1）为公共底座。

• 专硕（MF/农村金融）：以附录 F 四类范式（调研报告/产品设计/解决方案/案例分析）为主；其中冲 CSSCI 者按四风格升级。

• 合流点（升级路径）：

  • 调研报告范式 → 调研风格（补机制归纳与理论对话，投《中国农村观察》）

  • 案例分析范式 → 案例风格（补 Eisenhardt/Yin 方法与理论贡献，投《管理世界》）

  • 产品设计/解决方案范式 → 一般不直接冲 CSSCI，但可用实证风格的方法章支撑其“效果评价”部分

[提示] 一张风格分化表两用：学硕用它选风格，专硕用它选完范式后再判断要不要升级。定位完成后，把结论写进本章产出物 style_positioning.md（§11.12 模板）。

---

§11.3 写作工具链：Zotero → humanizer → 期刊 skill

初稿到投稿版之间，有三道“加工工序”。本章把前面章节铺好的工具串成一条流水线。

三件套工作流

① Zotero cite：引用插入（承接第 3 章 §3.5）

• 写作时直接用 Zotero 插件在 Word/LibreOffice 里插入引文，不要手敲参考文献。

• 输出样式选目标期刊要求的格式（毕业论文用 GB/T 7714—2025；投稿按刊物模板）。

• 好处：改一处样式，全文引用与文末列表自动重排；杜绝“正文引了、文末漏了”的低级错。

② cn-academic-humanizer：去 AI 腔（本机已装 skill）

• 什么是 AI 腔：模型高频套话，一眼假。典型词：“扎实推进”“锚定”“深入探讨”“具有重要意义”“赋能”“闭环”“抓手”“在……的背景下”“不难发现”。

• 为什么必须去：这些词本身不算错，但密集出现会暴露“这段是 AI 写的”，而且它们信息量为零——“扎实推进乡村振兴”和“推进乡村振兴”说的是同一件事，前者只是显得空洞。

• 使用方法：全文过一遍 → 标记 AI 腔词汇 → 替换为作者自己的表达。核心是保留“你的声音”：你观察到的具体事实、你自己的判断句，而不是放之四海皆准的正确废话。

• 判断标准：删掉这个词，句子意思不变 → 它就是填充词，删。

③ 期刊 skill 口径校准：mw-style / cre-style 等（本机已装 Awesome-Journal-Skills）

• 对标目标期刊已发表论文的结构、语言、引用风格。

• 例：投《管理世界》案例论文 → 用 mw-style 校准标题通式与理论贡献表述；投《中国农村观察》→ 用 cre-style 校准调研文体的事实呈现方式。

• 校准不是改写内容，是对齐“腔调”：让审稿人第一眼看就觉得“这是投给我们刊的稿子”。

写作顺序建议（重要）

不要从第一个字顺着写到最后一个字。推荐顺序：

方法 -> 结果 -> 引言 -> 文献 -> 讨论 -> 摘要 -> 标题

• 先写方法与结果：这两块你手里已经有（第 8/9/10 章的产出），最确定、最不卡壳，先落地建立信心。

• 再写引言：知道了结果，才能精准“预告贡献”。

• 文献综述放后面：等你想清楚要和谁对话，综述才不会写成流水账。

• 摘要和标题最后写：它们是全文的浓缩，必须等正文定稿。标题是审稿人和编辑看到的第一样东西，值得你花一小时反复打磨。

[提示] 这条顺序的底层逻辑：从“确定的”写到“需要全局判断的”。卡壳往往是因为你在信息还不全的时候就试图写需要全局的段落。

---

§11.4 图表规范：三线表与 GB/T 7714

（编者注：GB/T 7714—2025《信息与文献 参考文献著录规则》已于 2026 年 7 月 1 日实施，替代 2015 版。网页类文献著录格式：作者. 题名[EB/OL]. (发布日期)[引用日期]. 获取路径.；有 DOI 等永久标识符的置于条目末尾。标准全文可在国家标准全文公开系统免费在线阅读：https://openstd.samr.gov.cn/bzgk/std/newGbInfo?hcno=C6CE52E55AC09B9C79A20AEA77CEDD14）

图表是审稿人扫一篇稿子时停留最久的地方。规范的图表 = 专业的第一印象。

三线表标准（学术论文通用）

学术论文的表格一律用三线表，不用带竖线的“网格表”：

• 顶线（表格最上方，粗）

• 栏目线（表头与数据之间，细）

• 底线（表格最下方，粗）

• 无竖线、无内部横线（除非需要分隔大类）

📐 结构图示（书版示意图的文字要点）

1. tikzpicture
2. , 网格表（错误）
3. 变量
4. 全样本
5. 子样本
6. X 系数
7. 0.123***
8. 0.098**

图 11.4 三线表标准——左为反例（带竖线、满格线），右为正例（顶线/底线粗、栏目线细，无竖线）。

--------------------------------   <- 顶线（粗）
 变量        (1)全样本   (2)子样本
--------------------------------   <- 栏目线（细）
 X 系数        0.123***    0.098**
              (0.031)     (0.042)
 控制变量       是          是
 观测值         3,456       1,203
 R²            0.214       0.187
--------------------------------   <- 底线（粗）
注：***、**、* 分别表示 1%、5%、10% 显著性水平；括号内为稳健标准误。
数据来源：作者根据 XXX 计算。

GB/T 7714—2025 引用格式（顺序编码制）

毕业论文与多数中文期刊采用 GB/T 7714—2025。两种制式：

• 顺序编码制：正文按引用先后用上标 [1][2][3]，文末按序号排列。

• 著者-出版年制：正文用“（张三，2020）”，文末按作者字顺排列（源 11 采集：开题模板用此制）。

常见类型标识：普通图书 [M] / 期刊论文 [J] / 学位论文 [D] / 会议论文 [C] / 电子文献 [EB/OL]。用 Zotero 自动生成，别手敲（§11.3）。

图表自足性原则

读者不看正文，也能独立看懂每一张图表。

做到自足的四要素：

1. 标题完整：说清“这是什么”，而非“表 1 回归结果”这种废话。写“表 1 数字金融可得性对农户收入的回归结果”。

2. 单位与口径：变量单位、样本区间、显著性星号含义、括号里是标准误还是 t 值——全部在表注写明。

3. 数据来源：每张表/图下方注明数据来源（“数据来源：作者根据 CFPS 2020 计算”“数据来源：中国人民银行《中国农村金融服务报告》”）。

4. 必要的注：异常值、缺失处理、加权方式等，用表注补充。

图表编号

• 表、图分别编号：表 1、表 2……图 1、图 2……按正文出现顺序。

• 学位论文按学院规范要中英文对照（表 1 Table 1 / 图 1 Fig.1），表题在上、图题在下（源 11 采集格式规范）。

• 图片用高清晰原图，不用复印件/截图糊图。

△  计量单位守国标《量和单位》：面积用 hm²/m² 不用“亩”，质量用 kg/t 不用“斤”，浓度用 mol/L 不用 ppm。错别字率不得超过 1‰。

---

§11.5 AI 使用声明三版：开题 / 投稿 / 答辩

用了 AI 就要声明——这是底线（S0.0：AI 不得署名）。但不同场合，声明的详略不同。本章给你三版模板，直接套用。

核心原则：如实、覆盖全环节、不缩小范围

声明最常见的不端，不是“没写声明”，而是缩小 AI 使用范围——明明 AI 写了整个文献综述，声明里只写“用于语言润色”。这叫隐匿性使用，比不声明更严重（详见 §11.11 的 S11.1）。

版本一：开题版（简洁）

开题阶段 AI 使用还浅，一句话交代清楚即可：

版本二：投稿版（AIGC 五要素详细披露）★

投稿/发表阶段，按期刊要求做五要素完整披露。这是三版里最重要的：

[重点] 五要素口诀：谁（工具）· 哪（环节）· 多深（程度）· 怎么把关（审核）· 谁负责（声明）。缺任何一项，声明就不完整。

版本三：答辩版（口语化补充）

答辩时口头/书面补充，重点是交代从开题到定稿之间 AI 使用的变化：

三版对照速查

表 11.5 三版对照速查。

L4|L4|L4|L4

版本 & 场合 & 详略 & 核心
开题版 & 开题报告 & 简洁一句话 & 交代初步使用 + 强调独立形成
投稿版 & 投稿/发表 & 五要素详细 & 完整披露，可供审稿人核查
答辩版 & 答辩 & 口语补充 & 说明与开题声明的差异\

[提示] 三版声明都要存档（放进 产出物/ch11/），它们是 S11.1 的物证，也是答辩时应对“你 AI 用了多少”这一必问问题的底气。

---

§11.6 投稿流程与评审应对

稿子写完只是开始。从投稿到发表，你要过“外审”这一关——这是把学生和研究者区分开的地方。

CSSCI 投稿基本流程

选刊 -> 格式适配 -> 投稿 -> 外审（匿名） -> 修回 -> 终审 -> 发表

• 选刊：用 §11.2 的风格定位匹配刊物。风格不对口，再好的稿子也白投（实证稿投《中国农村观察》、调研稿投《金融研究》都是失配）。

• 格式适配：按目标刊模板调引用格式、字数、图表规范、摘要与关键词（源 11：关键词 3–5 个，硕士摘要 500 字左右）。

• 外审：匿名评审，通常 2–3 位专家。周期数周到数月。

• 修回：收到意见后逐条修改并写修回信（见下）。

• 终审 / 发表：编辑部根据修回情况决定录用。

审稿意见分类应对（核心技能）

收到审稿意见别慌，也别逐条照单全收。先分类：

表 11.6 审稿意见分类应对（核心技能）。

L3|L3|L3

类别 & 内容 & 应对
A 类（必须改） & 方法论缺陷 / 数据问题 / 逻辑错误 & 无条件改。这是硬伤，不改必被拒。改完在修回信里说明怎么改的
B 类（建议改） & 文献补充 / 表述优化 / 图表改进 & 尽量改。改了显得虚心，确有困难要礼貌说明理由
C 类（可讨论） & 审稿人误解 / 学术观点分歧 & 礼貌回应。若是误解，补一句澄清；若是观点分歧，据理说明但不硬顶\

△  态度铁律：对审稿人永远礼貌。哪怕意见明显外行，也要写“感谢专家的中肯意见”。C 类分歧可以坚持，但要用证据坚持，不能用情绪。

修回信格式（逐条回复）

修回信（Response Letter）的标准做法：

1. 逐条回复：把每条审稿意见原文抄下来，下面写“回复 + 修改说明”。

2. 色块/标注：正文中修改的地方用高亮或色块标注，让编辑和审稿人一眼看到改了哪。

3. 定位：注明“已修改，见修订稿第 X 页第 X 段”。

【审稿意见 3】作者对内生性问题的处理不够充分，建议增加工具变量检验。
【回复】感谢专家的宝贵意见。我们已在第 5.3 节新增工具变量（IV）检验，
        以 XXX 作为工具变量，结果见修订稿表 6（第 12 页，已用蓝色标注）。
        一阶段 F 值为 XX，排除弱工具变量问题。结论保持稳健。

预印本与数据可用性声明

• 预印本：部分领域允许投稿前挂预印本（如工作论文平台）；但多数 CSSCI 刊物要求未公开发表，挂预印本前先确认目标刊政策，避免被判“重复发表”。

• 数据可用性声明：越来越多刊物要求说明“数据是否可获取、如何获取”。涉及商业库（如 CFPS、CNRDS）要写明来源与使用授权；自采数据说明是否可提供脱敏版。这条与 S8.1/S9.3 的“可复现三件套（do+data+log）”一脉相承。

---

§11.7 收尾：全流程诚信自查闭环

第 0 章我们从这里"前移"出发（读前震慑），现在走完整个研究环，回到这里收束——四条经典研究道德准则 + ICMJE 六条 AI 时代要义已在 §0 表中给出（详见 §0.5 与 §0.6），本节聚焦"封口 checklist"。

---

全流程诚信自查：从 S0.0 到 S11.2 的 23 个检查点串联

投稿前，把附录 B 的 23 个检查点从头到尾过一遍（S0.0 → S11.2）。这里给一份投稿前最终 checklist，任何一条不确定 → 先问导师：

[ ] AI 声明三版齐全（开题/投稿/答辩），内容与实际操作一致（S11.1）
[ ] 署名符合 ICMJE 四条，AI 未署名；无一稿多投、无拆分发表（S11.2）
[ ] 参考文献逐条经 Zotero/知网核实，0 条虚构（S3.1/S3.2）
[ ] 每个回归系数/统计数字都能从 do 文件复现（S1.2/S9.4/S8.1）
[ ] 未 p-hacking：所有合理设定均在稳健性或规格曲线中呈现（S9.1/S9.2）
[ ] 问卷/访谈数据均获知情同意，涉敏数据已脱敏（S7.1/S7.2）
[ ] 借用量表注明出处与原始信效度；抽样方式如实描述（S5.1/S5.2）
[ ] 理论框架图每条箭头都有文献支撑（S2.1/S4.1）
[ ] do 文件 + 数据 + log 三件套齐全，data/raw 只读未改（S8.1/S9.3）
[ ] 查重通过（知网 / Turnitin），无抄袭
[ ] 格式已适配目标期刊（引用样式/字数/图表规范/摘要关键词）

[提示] 这份 checklist 与附录 D《诚信自查十问》互为表里：十问是“问答式终检”，这份是“勾选式清单”。两个都过一遍，才算真正给研究环封口。

---

🛠 AI 辅助研究栏｜用法一：AI 结构评审——贴提纲问“逻辑链断在哪”

初稿或提纲完成后，贴给 AI 做结构诊断，而不是让它帮你写：

以下是我论文的[提纲/初稿]。请只做结构诊断，不要帮我改写：
1. 逻辑链在哪里断了？（哪一节的前提推不出结论）
2. 引言承诺的“三点贡献”，正文有没有一一兑现？
3. 方法与研究问题是否匹配？（我声称回答因果问题，但方法能否支撑？）
4. 结论有没有超出数据能支撑的范围（over-claim）？
请逐条指出问题所在的小节，并说明理由。

关键是让 AI 当审稿人，不当枪手。它找逻辑漏洞很强，替你写则会让论文失去你的声音（还会踩 AI 腔与诚信红线）。

用法二：AI 语言润色——保留作者声音，去模型腔

• 用 cn-academic-humanizer（本机已装）批量扫 AI 腔词汇（§11.3 ②）。

• 润色的边界：AI 可以改“通顺、简洁、去套话”，不可以改观点、改数据、改结论。

• 润色后通读一遍，把不像你说话的地方改回来——审稿人能闻出“全篇一个腔调”的机器味。

用法三：peer-review skill 自检——模拟审稿人视角

• 用 peer-review（本机已装）对自己的稿子做一轮结构化自评：方法学评估、统计有效性、报告规范符合度、结论与证据的匹配度。

• 把它当成“投稿前的模拟外审”，先自己挨一遍批，比被真审稿人拒了再改划算得多。

用法四：期刊 skill 口径校准示例

以投《管理世界》案例论文为例：

（调用 mw-style）我的案例论文标题是《XX 的调查研究》。
请对照《管理世界》案例研究论文的标题通式与理论贡献表述习惯，
指出标题的问题，并给出 2–3 个符合该刊文体的候选标题。

• 预期反馈：《管理世界》案例论文标题通式是 研究对象的模式与机制——基于“XX”的探索性/单/多案例研究（源 18），“调查研究”这种提法偏调研文体，与该刊案例栏目口径不符。

• 换成 cre-style 投《中国农村观察》时，同样的稿子反而可能要往“调研文体”靠——这就是风格分化的实战意义。

△  四个用法共同的红线：AI 只辅助判断与表达，不生成研究内容。凡 AI 参与了写作环节，都要进 §11.5 的声明。

---

---

🛡 AI 诚信栏｜S11.1 AI 使用声明三版齐全且真实

红线：开题、投稿、答辩三个版本的 AI 使用声明都要有，且必须如实覆盖所有使用环节。

这条红线管什么

表 11.7 用法四：期刊 skill 口径校准示例。

L2|L2

情形 & 判定
声明写“AI 用于文献检索与代码调试”，实际操作也确实如此 & ✅ 合规
声明写“仅用于语言润色”，但实际 AI 写了整个文献综述 & ❌ 隐匿性使用——比不声明更严重
只做了投稿版声明，开题/答辩版缺失 & ❌ 不齐全（S11.1 要求三版）
答辩时被问“AI 用了多少”，回答与书面声明不一致 & ❌ 声明不真实\

为什么“缩小范围”是重灾区

学生最常见的侥幸心理：“我就让 AI 写了综述初稿，最后我自己改了，应该不算吧？”——算。判定标准不是“最终有没有你的改动”，而是**“这个环节的实质内容最初是谁产生的”**。文献综述的选取、组织、论证若由 AI 起草，你就必须在“使用环节”里如实列出“文献综述起草（AI 部分生成，作者改写并核实）”，而不是含糊成“语言润色”。

如实的声明不丢人，隐匿的声明才是学术不端。 声明写清楚，反而证明你对 AI 的使用是清醒、可控的。

S11.2 署名（ICMJE 四条）与投稿诚信

ICMJE 署名四条件（缺一不可）

国际医学期刊编辑委员会（ICMJE）的署名标准，已被广泛用于社科：

1. 对研究的构思/设计，或数据的获取/分析/解释有实质性贡献；且

2. 起草论文，或对重要知识内容作批判性修改；且

3. 同意最终定稿版本；且

4. 同意对研究工作全面负责，确保相关问题得到恰当调查与解决。

AI 为什么不得署名

把 AI 对照四条：AI 无法同意定稿（第 3 条）、无法承担责任（第 4 条）——它没有法律主体资格，出了学术不端也无法被追责。所以任何情况下 AI 都不得列为作者。这是 S0.0 的核心红线，在此收束。AI 的贡献只能写进“AI 使用声明”（§11.5），不能写进作者栏。

投稿诚信三条禁令

表 11.8 署名（ICMJE 四条）与投稿诚信。

L3|L3|L3

禁令 & 含义 & 经典表述
不一稿多投 & 同一篇稿子不能同时投多个刊物；被拒后才能转投 & 专业道德准则
不拆分发表 & 把一个完整研究切成几篇“最小可发表单元”灌水 & “将数据分割成不同部分……是不道德的”
不重复发表 & 已发表成果换个说法再发，制造“新贡献”假象 & 建议：“不要重复发表旧观点以形成新贡献的假象”\

[提示] S11.2 与 S9.1 遥相呼应：S9.1 管“不 p-hacking 凑显著”，S11.2 管“不拆分/重复凑数量”——两者都是拿研究的完整性换个人指标，均属学术不端。

---

---

---

English Edition

Chapter 11 · Writing the Paper: Academic Style and AI Disclosure

Learning Objectives

After completing this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Structure a paper with the Bhattacherjee 16-chapter skeleton (an IMRaD variant)

2. Judge your paper’s style against the four-style table and match it to an outlet

3. Use cn-academic-humanizer to strip AI-speak, and journal skills (mw-style/cre-style) to calibrate register

4. Write three versions of the AI use statement (proposal / submission / defense)

5. Recite the four research-ethics principles and complete the pre-submission integrity sweep

[Tip] Where this chapter sits in the handbook: it is the closing chapter of the research wheel. In Chapter 0 you started from Wallace’s Wheel of Science, then walked through topic selection (Ch. 3), design (Ch. 4), data (Ch. 5–6), collection (Ch. 7), description (Ch. 8), empirical work (Ch. 9), and cases (Ch. 10)—by now the results are in your hands. Chapter 11 settles only the last question: how to write it up into a “proper” paper, and at what point AI’s involvement must be disclosed.

➤ The chapter’s core addition is the four-way split of academic styles (empirical / field-survey / case / theory). The previous ten chapters taught you “how to do research”; this is the first chapter to answer head-on “which kind of paper are you writing, and where should it go”—when students’ submissions fail on a mismatch, eight times out of ten it is not poor writing but not knowing which genre they were writing.

---

11.1 Paper Structure: From the IMRaD Skeleton to Four Paradigms

The Bhattacherjee Skeleton (IMRaD Variant)—The Common Base for Academic Master’s and CSSCI Aspirants

The standard skeleton for social science papers is essentially an expanded variant of IMRaD (Introduction–Methods–Results–and–Discussion). Six blocks:

Table 11.1 The Bhattacherjee skeleton (IMRaD variant)—for academic master’s and CSSCI aspirants.

L3|L3|L3

Block & Question answered & Writing points
1. Introduction & Why is this worth doing? & Problem + motivation + contribution preview. Three moves: the real/theoretical gap → what this paper does → three marginal contributions
2. Literature review & Whom are you talking to? & Theoretical dialogue + gap identification. Not a list of references but “how far predecessors got, what step is missing, and which step I fill”
3. Theory and hypotheses & On what basis does it predict? & Theoretical framework diagram (output of Ch. 4 §4.6) + hypothesis derivation. Every hypothesis needs literature support (S4.1)
4. Methods & How is it identified? & Data (source + sample) + variables (operationalization of dependent / explanatory / control) + model (econometric equation or case design)
5. Results & What was found? & Main tests + robustness. Tables in three-line style; the text explains “what it means,” never reads out numbers
6. Discussion and conclusion & So what? & Theoretical contribution + practical implications + limitations + future directions. Write limitations honestly; no empty phrases like “data are limited”\

[Key point] Writing order ≠ presentation order. The skeleton is the order readers read, not the order you write. Recommended writing order: see §11.3.

Contrast with the Four Paradigm Skeletons (Professional Master’s Track; Quick Reference in Appendix F)

Academic master’s students and CSSCI-aspiring professional master’s students use the IMRaD skeleton above; professional master’s (MF / rural finance) theses follow the four paradigms of the school’s “MF Study Guide” (details in Appendix F). The key differences from IMRaD:

Table 11.2 Contrast with the four paradigm skeletons (professional master’s track; quick reference in Appendix F).

L3|L3|L3

Paradigm & Structural skeleton & Differences from IMRaD
Survey report & Introduction → concepts and theory → survey design → descriptive analysis → econometric analysis → conclusions and recommendations & An extra chapter “survey design and reliability/validity analysis”; hypotheses not mandatory, emphasis on factual presentation
Product / service design & Introduction → concepts and theory → demand and market analysis → design and pricing (core) → contracts / feasibility / risk → conclusions & The core chapter is “design and pricing”—creative synthesis and information processing, not causal testing
Solution & Introduction → concepts and theory → status and performance evaluation → problem diagnosis and root-cause analysis → solution design → effectiveness → conclusions (the seven-chapter “diagnosis–prescription”) & Emphasizes “dialectical thinking”: evaluate the status quo before diagnosing; multi-cause analysis + prescription design
Case analysis & Introduction → concepts and theory → research design and method → case background and process → case analysis → conclusions and implications & Case background is objective description without value judgment; the analysis chapter connects to Ch. 10’s Eisenhardt/Yin methods\

Figure 11.1 The IMRaD common base plus four paradigm skeletons—empirical / review / case / theory branches, each with its typical journals.

△  Hard school rule (collected as Source 11): MF theses are split into four genres—product design / solution, survey report, case analysis, and academic paper—and the school discourages academic-style degree theses; there must be two substantive chapters and the whole text must be ≥ 40,000 characters (the university format guide says 30,000; the school applies the stricter standard). Academic master’s students face no such constraint and can go straight to IMRaD.

Which Set Should You Use?

• Academic master’s / publication-aspiring professional master’s → IMRaD skeleton (six blocks)

• Professional master’s degree thesis (no publication goal) → one of Appendix F’s four paradigms

• Convergence point: a professional master’s “survey report” upgraded to publishable quality = the survey style of §11.2; an upgraded “case analysis” = the case style (research-case track). Upgrade moves: see the §11.2 decision table.

---

11.2 The Four-Way Split of Academic Styles (Core of This Chapter)

📐 结构图示（书版示意图的文字要点）

1. tikzpicture
2. Empirical style
3. Keywords:
4. Data:
5. Methods:
6. Typical journals:
7. Economic Research Journal
8. Journal of Financial Research

Figure 11.2 The four-style cards—a four-way mapping from question type to typical journals; see the continuation in §11.2 for the three locating questions.

Why Styles Must Be Distinguished

There is no one-size-fits-all genre for academic papers. A DID causal-identification paper in Economic Research Journal and a village survey paper in China Rural Survey differ completely in question form, data form, methods, structural emphasis, and reviewer expectations. The most common reason students’ submissions fail is not “bad writing” but “submitting a survey-style manuscript to an empirical-style journal”—the question form and reviewer expectations do not match, and it is rejected in round one.

So before you write, you must answer: which kind of paper am I writing?

The Four-Style Comparison Table (Must Memorize · Locate Your Paper)

Table 11.3 The four-style comparison table (must memorize — locate your paper).

L5|L5|L5|L5|L5

Dimension & Empirical & Survey & Case & Theory
Question form & Causal / net effect (effect of X on Y) & Status quo / mechanism / problem dissection (what + why) & Process / mechanism (How/Why) & Concepts / paradigms / systems (what ought to be, and logic)
Data form & Large-sample micro / panel (official or commercial) & Fieldwork / multi-village multi-site observation & Thick description of single/multiple cases (interview + archive + observation triangle) & Literature + thought experiments
Methods & DID / IV / RDD / PSM / FE + mechanism + heterogeneity & Descriptive statistics + stylized facts + mechanism induction (simple regressions may corroborate) & Eisenhardt/Markus paradigms + grounded coding & Theoretical modeling / intellectual history / paradigm comparison
Structural emphasis & Identification strategy + robustness & Fact presentation + cause analysis & Theoretical dialogue + evidence chain + theoretical contribution & Logical deduction + literature dialogue
Reviewer expectation & Clean causal identification, credible mechanisms & Solid facts, original insight & Clear theoretical contribution, sound method & Rigorous logic, clear increment
Typical outlets & Economic Research J., J. of Financial Research, Rural China Economy & China Rural Survey tradition & Management World, J. of Management Sciences in China & Economic Research J., Economic Perspectives
Exemplar papers & Digital financial inclusion series (J. of Financial Research etc.) & Huang Zuhui 2012 / Deng Hengshan cooperative series & Xu Hui 2024 Hualong One / Mao Jiye & Zhang Xia 2008 & Feng Xingyuan 2004 local knowledge paradigm
Lecture chapters & Ch. 9 & Ch. 7+8 & Ch. 10 & Ch. 2 (elective deepening)
AI integrity focus & S9.1–S9.4 (p-hacking / reproducibility) & S5.2 / S7.1–S7.2 (sampling honesty / survey ethics) & S10.1–S10.2 (interview truthfulness / coding disclosure) & S2.1 (no fabricated theoretical links)\

How to “Imitate” a Style

Once you know which style is yours, the most effective learning is not reading writing guides but close-reading 2–3 flagship papers of that style and dissecting the genre paragraph by paragraph:

• Empirical style: dissect how the “identification strategy” is made clear (why the DID is clean, how parallel trends are verified, how mechanisms rule out alternatives). Exemplars: the digital financial inclusion series (J. of Financial Research’s substitution–complementarity paper, FIGI-DID, etc.).

• Survey style: dissect how “stylized facts + descriptive statistics” support a mechanism judgment without regression. Exemplars: Huang Zuhui 2012, Deng Hengshan’s cooperative series (China Rural Survey).

• Case style: dissect its title formula (Patterns and mechanisms of X---an exploratory case study of ‘‘XX’’) and the “theoretical dialogue—evidence chain—theoretical contribution” triad. Exemplars: Xu Hui 2024 Hualong One, Mao Jiye & Zhang Xia 2008.

• Theory style: dissect how a conceptual gap is unfolded into a coherent logic, and where the increment lies. Exemplar: Feng Xingyuan 2004 on the local knowledge paradigm.

[Key point] Before formally citing any exemplar, verify its bibliographic record in Zotero (S3.1/S3.2; Huang Zuhui 2012 and the Deng Hengshan series are indirectly verified entries—add DOIs before citing). Reuse the five-element close-reading of Ch. 3 §3.6 and the close-reading workshop of Ch. 10 §10.9–§10.11.

---

11.2 (Cont.) Style Selection Decision Table: Three Questions to Locate Your Paper

The Student Self-Check Decision Tree

Unsure which style is yours? Walk through the three questions below; the leaf you land on is your style:

(1) Is your research question about "effects/impacts" (causal),
    "mechanisms/processes" (How/Why),
    or "what is it / why so" (description + dissection)?
        |
        +- Causal --------------> (2a)
        +- How/Why process -----> (2b)
        +- Descriptive/dissect -> (2c)

(2a) Is large-sample causal data available?
     +- Yes --------------------> [Empirical style] (Ch. 9 route)
     +- No, but cases have tension -> go to (2b)

(2b) Is the goal teaching value or theoretical contribution?
     +- Theoretical contribution -> [Case style] (Ch. 10 research-case track)
     +- Teaching value ----------> [Teaching case] (Ch. 10 teaching-case
                                   track + Appendix F + committee outlet)

(2c) Do you have multi-site fieldwork?
     +- Yes ------------------> [Survey style] (Ch. 7+8 route,
                                the China Rural Survey tradition)
     +- Pure conceptual work -> [Theory style] (elective for academic
                                master's)

The Essence of the Three Questions: Question Type × Data Form × Target Outlet

Table 11.4 The essence of the three questions: question type × data form × target outlet.

L3|L3|L3

Your situation & Style & Key constraint
Causal question + large panel available & Empirical & Must do robustness + mechanisms (S9.1–S9.4)
Causal question + only cases + theoretical tension & Case (research-case track) & Must engage theory; cannot stop at “case description” (Mao Jiye 2008)
Description/dissection + multi-village fieldwork & Survey & Solid facts, original insight; honest sampling (S5.2)
Description/dissection + purely conceptual & Theory & Rigorous logic, clear increment; no fabricated theoretical links (S2.1)
Teaching-value oriented (for classroom discussion) & Teaching case & Decision tension + case/teaching-note pair (Ch. 10)\

The Full Landscape: Academic Styles × Professional Paradigms

• Academic master’s: free choice among the four styles (theory style is an elective deepening)—the Bhattacherjee skeleton (§11.1) is the common base.

• Professional master’s (MF / rural finance): Appendix F’s four paradigms (survey report / product design / solution / case analysis) come first; those aiming at CSSCI upgrade to the four styles.

• Convergence points (upgrade paths):

  • Survey-report paradigm → survey style (add mechanism induction and theoretical dialogue; target China Rural Survey)

  • Case-analysis paradigm → case style (add Eisenhardt/Yin methods and theoretical contribution; target Management World)

  • Product-design / solution paradigms → generally do not target CSSCI directly, but the empirical style’s methods chapter can support their “effectiveness evaluation” sections

[Tip] One style table, two uses: academic master’s use it to pick a style; professional master’s use it to decide whether to upgrade after picking a paradigm. Once positioned, record the conclusion in this chapter’s deliverable style_positioning.md (template in §11.12).

---

11.3 The Writing Toolchain: Zotero → humanizer → Journal Skills

Between first draft and submission-ready version there are three “processing steps.” This chapter chains the tools laid out in earlier chapters into one pipeline.

The Three-Tool Workflow

(1) Zotero cite: reference insertion (continuing Ch. 3 §3.5)

• While writing, insert citations with the Zotero plugin in Word/LibreOffice—never type references by hand.

• Choose the output style required by the target journal (thesis uses GB/T 7714—2025; submissions follow the journal’s template).

• Benefit: change the style once and every citation and the end list re-flow automatically; eliminates the rookie error of “cited in text but missing from the list.”

(2) cn-academic-humanizer: stripping AI-speak (installed locally)

• What AI-speak is: high-frequency model boilerplate, fake at a glance. Typical words: “solidly advance,” “anchor,” “explore in depth,” “of great significance,” “empower,” “closed loop,” “grip/handle,” “against the backdrop of…,” “it is not hard to see.”

• Why it must go: these words are not wrong per se, but dense occurrence exposes “this paragraph was written by AI”; and they carry zero information—“solidly advance rural revitalization” and “advance rural revitalization” say the same thing; the former just sounds hollow.

• How to use: run the whole text once → flag AI-speak words → replace them with your own expression. The core is preserving “your voice”: the specific facts you observed, your own judgments—not universally correct platitudes.

• Test: delete the word; if the sentence means the same, it is filler—delete it.

(3) Journal skills for register calibration: mw-style / cre-style, etc. (Awesome-Journal-Skills, installed locally)

• Benchmark against the target journal’s published papers in structure, language, and citation style.

• Example: submitting a case paper to Management World → use mw-style to calibrate the title formula and contribution phrasing; to China Rural Survey → use cre-style to calibrate the survey genre’s way of presenting facts.

• Calibration is not rewriting content; it is aligning the “tone”: making the reviewer feel at first glance “this manuscript was written for our journal.”

Recommended Writing Order (Important)

Do not write from the first word to the last in sequence. Recommended order:

Methods -> Results -> Introduction -> Literature -> Discussion
-> Abstract -> Title

• Write methods and results first: you already have these in hand (outputs of Ch. 8/9/10); they are the most settled and least likely to block—landing them first builds confidence.

• Then the introduction: only once you know the results can you “preview contributions” precisely.

• Literature review later: only when you know whom you are talking to will the review avoid becoming a laundry list.

• Abstract and title last: they are the concentrate of the whole paper and must wait for the finalized text. The title is the first thing reviewers and editors see—worth an hour of repeated polishing.

[Tip] The logic behind this order: write from “the settled” toward “what requires global judgment.” Blocks usually happen when you try to write global passages while information is still incomplete.

---

11.4 Tables and Figures: Three-Line Tables and GB/T 7714

(Editor’s note: GB/T 7714—2025, “Information and documentation—Rules for bibliographic references,” took effect on 1 July 2026, replacing the 2015 edition. Web resources are recorded as: Author. Title[EB/OL]. (publication date)[citation date]. URL.; persistent identifiers such as DOIs go at the end of the entry. The full text is freely readable in the National Standards open system: https://openstd.samr.gov.cn/bzgk/std/newGbInfo?hcno=C6CE52E55AC09B9C79A20AEA77CEDD14.)

Tables and figures are where a reviewer lingers longest when scanning a manuscript. Well-formed ones are the professional first impression.

The Three-Line Table Standard (Universal in Academic Papers)

Academic tables always use the three-line style, never gridded tables with vertical rules:

• Top rule (top of the table, thick)

• Mid rule (between header and data, thin)

• Bottom rule (bottom of the table, thick)

• No vertical rules, no internal horizontal rules (unless separating major groups)

📐 结构图示（书版示意图的文字要点）

1. tikzpicture
2. Variable
3. Full sample
4. Subsample
5. X coef.
6. 0.123***
7. 0.098**
8. Obs.

Figure 11.4 The three-line table standard—left a counter-example (vertical rules, full grid), right a correct example (thick top/bottom rules, thin mid rule, no vertical rules).

--------------------------------   <- top rule (thick)
 Variable      (1) Full    (2) Sub
--------------------------------   <- mid rule (thin)
 X coef.        0.123***    0.098**
               (0.031)     (0.042)
 Controls        Yes         Yes
 Obs.            3,456       1,203
 R^2             0.214       0.187
--------------------------------   <- bottom rule (thick)
Note: ***, **, * denote significance at 1%, 5%, 10%;
robust standard errors in parentheses.
Data source: computed by the authors from XXX.

The GB/T 7714—2025 Citation Format (Numeric Sequence System)

Theses and most Chinese journals use GB/T 7714—2025. Two systems:

• Numeric sequence: superscript [1][2][3] in order of citation; the reference list ordered by number.

• Author–date: in-text “”—the proposal template uses this system (Source 11); the list ordered alphabetically.

Common type codes: monograph [M] / journal article [J] / thesis [D] / conference paper [C] / electronic resource [EB/OL]. Let Zotero generate them—do not type them (§11.3).

Self-Sufficiency of Tables and Figures

A reader who skips the text must still understand every table and figure on its own.

Four elements of self-sufficiency:

1. Complete titles: say “what this is,” not the empty “Table 1: regression results.” Write “Table 1: Regression of digital finance accessibility on farm household income.”

2. Units and definitions: variable units, sample period, meaning of significance stars, whether parentheses hold standard errors or t values—all stated in table notes.

3. Data sources: beneath every table/figure note the source (“Data source: computed by the authors from CFPS 2020”; “Data source: PBoC, China Rural Financial Services Report”).

4. Necessary notes: outliers, missing-data handling, weighting, etc., via table notes.

Numbering Tables and Figures

• Number tables and figures separately: Table 1, Table 2… Figure 1, Figure 2… in order of appearance.

• Theses follow the school’s bilingual-caption rule (Table 1 / Figure 1 with Chinese), table captions above, figure captions below (format guide, Source 11).

• Use high-resolution originals; no photocopied or blurry screenshots.

△  Units follow the national standard on Quantities and Units: area in hm${}^2$/m${}^2$ not mu; mass in kg/t not jin; concentration in mol/L not ppm. Typo rate must not exceed 1‰.

---

11.5 Three Versions of the AI Use Statement: Proposal / Submission / Defense

If you used AI, you must declare it—that is the bottom line (S0.0: AI must not be an author). But different occasions call for different levels of detail. Here are three templates to adopt directly.

Core Principle: Truthful, Full-Coverage, No Narrowing

The most common misconduct in declarations is not “no statement” but narrowing the scope of AI use—AI wrote the entire literature review, yet the statement says only “used for language polishing.” This is concealed use, worse than no declaration at all (see S11.1 in §11.11).

Version 1: Proposal Version (Concise)

At the proposal stage AI use is still shallow; one sentence suffices.

Version 2: Submission Version (Five-Element AIGC Disclosure) ★

At submission/publication, make the complete five-element disclosure required by journals. The most important of the three:

[Key point] The five-element formula: who (tool) · where (stage) · how deep (extent) · how gated (review) · who answers (statement). Missing any one, the declaration is incomplete.

Version 3: Defense Version (Oral Supplement)

At the defense, supplement orally or in writing; the point is explaining how AI use evolved between proposal and final draft.

Quick Comparison of the Three Versions

Table 11.5 Quick comparison of the three versions.

L4|L4|L4|L4

Version & Occasion & Detail & Core
Proposal & Proposal report & One concise sentence & Initial use disclosed + independent work emphasized
Submission & Submission / publication & Five elements in detail & Full disclosure, reviewer-auditable
Defense & Defense & Oral supplement & Differences from the proposal statement\

[Tip] Archive all three statements (into deliverables/ch11/); they are the physical evidence for S11.1, and your confidence when the defense asks the inevitable “how much AI did you use?”

---

11.6 The Submission Process and Handling Reviews

Finishing the manuscript is only the beginning. From submission to publication you must pass “external review”—the gate that separates students from researchers.

The Basic CSSCI Submission Workflow

Choose journal -> format fit -> submit -> external review
(anonymous) -> revise and resubmit -> final review -> publication

• Choosing the journal: match outlets with the §11.2 style positioning. A style mismatch wastes even the best manuscript (an empirical paper to China Rural Survey, a survey paper to J. of Financial Research—both mismatches).

• Format fit: adjust citation style, word count, table/figure norms, abstract and keywords to the target journal’s template (Source 11: 3–5 keywords; master’s abstract about 500 characters).

• External review: anonymous, usually 2–3 experts; weeks to months.

• Revise and resubmit: address each comment and write a response letter (below).

• Final review / publication: the editorial office decides on acceptance based on the revision.

Classifying Reviewer Comments (Core Skill)

Do not panic at review comments, and do not accept every item wholesale. Classify first:

Table 11.6 Classifying and handling reviewer comments (core skill).

L3|L3|L3

Category & Content & Response
Type A (must fix) & Methodological flaws / data problems / logical errors & Fix unconditionally. These are fatal; refusing means rejection. Explain in the response letter how you fixed them
Type B (should fix) & Literature supplements / wording improvements / figure upgrades & Fix as much as possible. Fixing shows good faith; if genuinely infeasible, politely explain why
Type C (negotiable) & Reviewer misunderstanding / scholarly disagreement & Respond politely. If a misunderstanding, add a clarification; if disagreement, argue with evidence, never with attitude\

△  The iron rule of attitude: always be courteous to reviewers. Even when a comment is clearly amateurish, write “thank the expert for the pertinent comments.” You may hold your ground on Type C, but with evidence, never emotion.

The Response Letter Format (Point-by-Point)

The standard practice for a response letter:

1. Reply point by point: quote each comment verbatim; beneath it write “response + revision notes.”

2. Highlights/markup: mark revised spots in the manuscript with highlights or color so editor and reviewers see at a glance what changed.

3. Locate: note “revised; see revised manuscript p. X, para. X.”

[Comment 3] The treatment of endogeneity is insufficient;
add an instrumental-variable test.
[Response] We thank the expert for the valuable comment. An
IV test has been added in Section 5.3 using XXX as the
instrument; see revised Table 6 (p. 12, marked in blue).
The first-stage F is XX, ruling out weak instruments.
Conclusions remain robust.

Preprints and Data Availability Statements

• Preprints: some fields allow posting a preprint before submission (e.g., working-paper platforms); but most CSSCI journals require unpublished work—check the target journal’s policy before posting, or risk a “duplicate publication” ruling.

• Data availability statements: more and more journals require stating “whether data are available and how.” For commercial databases (CFPS, CNRDS, etc.) state the source and license; for self-collected data state whether a de-identified version can be provided. This continues the “reproducibility trio (do + data + log)” of S8.1/S9.3.

---

11.7 Closing: The Full-Process Integrity Loop

In Chapter 0 we started “here, moved forward” (shock before reading); now the whole research wheel is complete and we return here to close the loop—the four classic research-ethics principles and ICMJE’s six AI-era essentials already appear in the §0 tables (see §0.5 and §0.6); this section focuses on the “closing checklist.”

---

The Full-Process Integrity Sweep: 23 Checkpoints from S0.0 to S11.2

Before submission, run through Appendix B’s 23 checkpoints from start to finish (S0.0 → S11.2). Here is the final pre-submission checklist—if any line is uncertain, ask your supervisor first:

[ ] All three AI statements present (proposal/submission/
    defense) and consistent with actual practice (S11.1)
[ ] Authorship meets the four ICMJE criteria; AI is not an
    author; no multiple submissions, no salami slicing (S11.2)
[ ] Every reference verified via Zotero/CNKI; zero
    fabricated entries (S3.1/S3.2)
[ ] Every regression coefficient / statistic reproducible
    from the do-file (S1.2/S9.4/S8.1)
[ ] No p-hacking: all reasonable specifications shown in
    robustness or specification curves (S9.1/S9.2)
[ ] Survey/interview data obtained with informed consent;
    sensitive data de-identified (S7.1/S7.2)
[ ] Borrowed scales cite their source and original
    reliability/validity; sampling described honestly
    (S5.1/S5.2)
[ ] Every arrow in the theoretical framework has literature
    support (S2.1/S4.1)
[ ] do-file + data + log all present; data/raw read-only
    and unmodified (S8.1/S9.3)
[ ] Similarity check passed (CNKI / Turnitin); no plagiarism
[ ] Format fitted to the target journal (citation style/
    length/table norms/abstract and keywords)

[Tip] This checklist and Appendix D’s “Ten Integrity Questions” are two sides of one coin: the ten questions are a “Q&A-style final check,” this is a “tick-box list.” Run both before the research wheel is truly sealed.

---

🛠 AI-Assisted Research｜Use 1: AI structural review—paste your outline and ask “where does the logic chain break”

Once the draft or outline is done, paste it to the AI for a structural diagnosis—not to have it write for you:

Below is my paper's [outline/draft]. Do structural
diagnosis only; do not rewrite for me:
1. Where does the logic chain break? (Which section's
   premises fail to support its conclusion?)
2. The introduction promises "three contributions"--does
   the body deliver each one?
3. Do methods match the research question? (I claim a
   causal answer---can these methods support it?)
4. Do conclusions exceed what the data support
   (over-claim)?
Point out the section for each problem and explain why.

The key: make the AI a reviewer, not a ghostwriter. It is strong at finding logical holes; letting it write for you strips the paper of your voice (and trips AI-speak and integrity red lines).

Use 2: AI language polishing—keep the author’s voice, remove the model’s tone

• Use cn-academic-humanizer (installed locally) to batch-scan for AI-speak (§11.3, step 2).

• The boundary of polishing: AI may improve “fluency, concision, removal of boilerplate”; it may not change viewpoints, data, or conclusions.

• After polishing, read the whole text through and change back anything that does not sound like you—reviewers can smell the machine’s “single flat register.”

Use 3: peer-review skill self-check—simulating the reviewer’s perspective

• Use peer-review (installed locally) for a structured self-review of your manuscript: methodological assessment, statistical validity, reporting-standard compliance, and the match between conclusions and evidence.

• Treat it as a “mock external review before submission”—taking the hits yourself first beats being rejected by a real reviewer and revising after.

Use 4: journal-skill register calibration—an example

Take a case paper submitted to Management World:

(invoking mw-style) My case paper is titled "An
Investigation and Study of XX."
Please compare the title formula and contribution phrasing
of Management World case papers, point out the problems
with my title, and offer 2-3 candidate titles that fit
the journal's genre.

• Expected feedback: Management World case titles follow Patterns and mechanisms of X---an exploratory / single / multiple case study of ‘‘XX’’ (Source 18); “an investigation and study” reads as survey genre and mismatches the journal’s case section.

• Switch to cre-style for China Rural Survey, and the same manuscript may need to move toward the survey genre—this is the practical meaning of style differentiation.

△  The shared red line of all four uses: AI only assists judgment and expression; it never generates research content. Any writing stage in which AI took part must enter the §11.5 statements.

---

---

🛡 AI Integrity｜S11.1 All three AI use statements present and truthful

Red line: the proposal, submission, and defense versions of the AI use statement must all exist, and each must truthfully cover every stage of use.

What this red line governs

Table 11.7 What the red line governs.

L2|L2

Situation & Verdict
Statement says “AI used for literature search and code debugging,” and practice matches & ✅ Compliant
Statement says “language polishing only,” but AI actually wrote the whole literature review & ❌ Concealed use—worse than no statement
Only the submission version made; proposal/defense versions missing & ❌ Incomplete (S11.1 requires all three)
Asked at the defense “how much AI did you use,” the oral answer contradicts the written statement & ❌ Statement not truthful\

Why “narrowing the scope” is the disaster zone

The most common wishful thinking: “I only had AI draft the literature review, and I revised it myself in the end—that shouldn’t count, right?”—It counts. The test is not “did my edits end up in the final text” but “who originally produced the substantive content of that stage”. If AI drafted the selection, organization, and argumentation of the literature review, your “stages of use” must list “literature review drafting (AI partially generated; author revised and verified),” not blur it into “language polishing.”

A truthful statement is nothing to be ashamed of; a concealing statement is misconduct. A clear statement proves, rather, that your use of AI is sober and controlled.

S11.2 Authorship (the Four ICMJE Criteria) and Submission Integrity

ICMJE’s four authorship criteria (all four required)

The ICMJE authorship standard, widely adopted in the social sciences:

1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; and

2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and

3. Final approval of the version to be published; and

4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring questions are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Why AI must not be an author

Test AI against the four: AI cannot approve the final version (criterion 3) and cannot take responsibility (criterion 4)—it has no legal personhood and cannot be held accountable for misconduct. Hence under no circumstances may AI be listed as an author. This is the core red line of S0.0, closing here. AI’s contribution belongs in the “AI use statement” (§11.5), never in the author list.

Three submission prohibitions

Table 11.8 Authorship (the four ICMJE criteria) and submission integrity.

L3|L3|L3

Prohibition & Meaning & Classic formulation
No multiple submissions & One manuscript must not be under review at several journals at once; resubmit only after rejection & Professional ethics
No salami slicing & Carving one complete study into “minimum publishable units” to inflate output & “Dividing data into different parts… is unethical”
No duplicate publication & Republishing published results reworded to fake “new contributions” & “Do not republish old ideas to create the illusion of new contributions”\

[Tip] S11.2 echoes S9.1: S9.1 governs “no p-hacking to manufacture significance,” S11.2 governs “no slicing/duplication to manufacture counts”—both trade research integrity for personal metrics, and both constitute academic misconduct.

---

---