Stats
Actions
Tags
From academy-of-management-annals-skills
Builds the ≤5-page, four-heading proposal that gates an Academy of Management Annals review, submitted under twice-yearly deadlines before any full review is invited.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/academy-of-management-annals-skills:amann-proposal-framingThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- The literature passed `amann-topic-selection` and you are ready to approach Annals
amann-topic-selection and you are ready to approach AnnalsAnnals uses a two-step, proposal-first process. You do not submit a full review cold; you submit a short proposal, and only an accepted proposal is invited to develop into a full article.
amann-review-process.)https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aomannals. A current CV may be requested for the editors' eyes only — confirm at submission time (待核实).The ≤5-page proposal is the single most consequential document in the Annals lifecycle: it is the gate. A strong proposal earns an invitation before you sink months into reading and drafting; a weak one ends the project regardless of how good the eventual review would have been. Treat it as a high-stakes argument, not an outline.
| Heading | What it must do | Common failure |
|---|---|---|
| Focus of the review | Name the literature and the problem with the field (from amann-topic-selection), not just the topic | A topic label ("a review of X") with no problem |
| Related reviews | Show command of prior reviews and stake the delta — what yours does that none did | Claiming "no review exists" instead of differentiating from the ones that do |
| Review scope and process | State boundaries, inclusion/exclusion logic, databases, and the synthesis method (narrative / systematic / bibliometric) | Vague "we will read the literature" with no transparent process |
| New insights | Lead with the integrative framework and the agenda — the new way of seeing the field, with attitude | A promise of "comprehensive coverage" and no new organizing idea |
The center of gravity is New insights: Associate Editors are deciding whether this review will reorganize the field, not whether it will summarize it. A proposal that nails coverage but offers no framework is the most common proposal-stage reject.
【Focus of the review】<literature + animating problem, one sentence>
【Related reviews】<existing reviews + the delta yours provides>
【Review scope and process】<boundaries / inclusion logic / databases / synthesis method>
【New insights】<integrative framework + agenda + the critical attitude>
【Length check】≤5pp single-spaced, 1-in margins, 12pt (refs/visuals excluded)? Y/N
【Deadline】targeting April 1 / October 1? <which>
【Balance note】<how author's own work is handled, if a contributor>
【Open verifications】portal / CV / specifics re-confirmed on official page? Y/N
【Next skill】→ amann-literature-synthesis (begin systematic reading) after invitation
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin academy-of-management-annals-skillsExplains the two-step proposal→invited review process for Academy of Management Annals, including deadlines, blinding, and timeline planning.
Frames a review topic for the ARE Editorial Committee: how intake works, how to suggest a topic, and what a Committee-ready pitch contains.
Guides authors targeting Academy of Management Annals on fit, framing, contribution bar, house style, and desk-reject heuristics for integrative management reviews.