From academy-of-management-annals-skills
Systematically gathers, codes, and synthesizes management/organization literature for Academy of Management Annals reviews. Guides search-and-coverage methodology and choice of narrative, systematic, or bibliometric integration.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/academy-of-management-annals-skills:amann-literature-synthesisThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- The proposal was invited and it is time to read the field thoroughly and transparently
The folder name says "data analysis," but an Annals review reports no data of its own. Your "analysis" is the systematic appraisal and integration of a literature. The credibility of the whole review rests on the reader's belief that you read everything that matters and coded it consistently. Build coverage as a transparent process, not from memory.
| Method | What it does | Best when |
|---|---|---|
| Narrative / integrative review | reads, interprets, and reorganizes the literature into a new framework | the contribution is conceptual integration (Annals' core mode) |
| Systematic review | a pre-specified, reproducible search-and-screen protocol; transparent inclusion | the field is large and you must prove comprehensive, unbiased coverage |
| Bibliometric / meta-analytic | co-citation, co-word, or quantitative effect-size synthesis | the contribution is structural (intellectual map) or a cumulative magnitude estimate |
Most Annals reviews are integrative narrative with a systematic backbone: a transparent search establishes coverage, and the narrative does the reorganizing. Bibliometrics can support the framework but rarely replaces the interpretive contribution.
amann-evidence-standards and the referees.Summarizing restates each paper; synthesizing makes papers talk to each other. Code the corpus as you read:
| Column | What to capture |
|---|---|
| Study | author–year; the contribution you cite it for |
| Construct / question | exactly what it theorizes or measures (so incommensurable work is not pooled) |
| Theory base | the lens it uses (so you can map streams and detect silos) |
| Method / context | design, sample, setting (so you can weight credibility) |
| Finding / claim | direction + magnitude or the conceptual move |
| Tension | which work it agrees/conflicts with, and why |
This matrix feeds the organizing framework, the synthesis tables, and the even-handed treatment of debates. You appraise the studies (you are the field's reviewer-of-record); you do not re-run or "correct" them.
【Method】narrative-integrative / systematic / bibliometric — and why
【Seed set】<canonical + proposal references>
【Search record】terms / databases / dates / counts logged? Y/N
【Snowball】backward+forward iterated to saturation? Y/N
【Inclusion logic】stated and consistently applied? Y/N
【Frontier + adjacency】recent WPs + bordering fields included? Y/N
【Saturation evidence】<where searches stopped yielding new must-cites>
【Coding matrix】construct/theory/method/finding/tension rows ready? Y/N
【Coverage risks】<any author/stream an omission referee could name>
【Next skill】→ amann-organizing-framework (impose the integrative spine on the matrix)
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin academy-of-management-annals-skillsSystematically gathers, reads, and synthesizes a large body of sociological research for an Annual Review of Sociology review, ensuring coverage discipline and avoiding citation gaps across theoretical traditions.
Systematically gathers, reads, and synthesizes economic research for an Annual Review of Economics (ARE) review. Builds evidence corpus via snowballing, keyword/JEL-code sweeps, and saturation logging, then produces an evidence matrix for cross-study comparison.
Appraises cumulative evidence quality and balance in an Academy of Management Annals review, weighing conflicting findings by credibility, steelmanning rival schools, and handling the author's own work even-handedly.