From annual-review-of-economics-skills
Negotiates ARE review scope with the Editorial Committee and anticipates what referees evaluate in a commissioned review article.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/annual-review-of-economics-skills:arecon-editor-strategyThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- The Editorial Committee invited the topic and you are negotiating the review's scope
ARE is run by an Editorial Committee of senior economists (current co-editors 检索于 2026-06:Philippe Aghion, Hélène Rey, Timothy Besley;以官网为准) plus the journal's production editors at Annual Reviews. Your primary partners differ by phase: the commissioning editor / Committee owns scope and acceptance; the production editor owns format, figures, copyediting, and the volume schedule. Because the article is commissioned, the relationship is more collaborative than adversarial — the Committee wants the review to succeed — but acceptance is not automatic: an invited manuscript still goes through review for accuracy, rigor, and balance (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准).
ARE referees do not check an identification strategy or replicate results — there are none of the author's own. They evaluate the review as a review:
| Referee question | What they are really checking |
|---|---|
| Is the coverage complete? | the saturation/comprehensiveness from arecon-literature-synthesis — can they name an omitted literature? |
| Is it balanced and accurate? | even-handedness across schools; no self-promotion (arecon-evidence-standards) |
| Is there a real framework? | the spine vs. an annotated bibliography (arecon-organizing-framework) |
| Is it accessible? | can an adjacent economist follow it (arecon-writing-style) |
| Are the appraisals fair and correct? | does the author characterize each study's contribution and limits accurately |
| Is it the right scope? | not too narrow (field review) nor unfinishably broad (Handbook) |
Referees of an ARE review are often the reviewed authors themselves — the people whose work is being weighed will read how you weighed it. This makes balance and accurate attribution strategic, not just ethical.
【Scope agreement】boundaries locked with editor in writing? Y/N
【Referee anticipation】coverage / balance / framework / accessibility / appraisal / scope — prepared each? Y/N
【Coverage asks】evaluated against spine + page envelope; accept/push-back plan? Y/N
【COI】reviewed-author referees flagged to editor? Y/N
【Timeline】volume/production schedule calibrated? Y/N · 待核实
【Source status】current editors/process re-confirmed on Annual Reviews pages? Y/N
【Next step】→ arecon-submission (preflight) → arecon-review-process (what to expect)
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin annual-review-of-economics-skillsDescribes the ARE Editorial Committee review cycle after an invited article is delivered, including review criteria, timeline, and revision planning.
Guides negotiation of commissioned scope and anticipation of reviewer expectations for ARSoc review articles. Plans interaction with Editorial Committee and production team.
Plans editor and referee strategy for Academy of Management Annals review articles — scope alignment, referee expectations, and revision cadence after proposal invitation.