From annual-review-of-economics-skills
Describes the ARE Editorial Committee review cycle after an invited article is delivered, including review criteria, timeline, and revision planning.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/annual-review-of-economics-skills:arecon-review-processThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- The commissioned draft is delivered and you want to know what happens next
Being invited gets your draft reviewed, not accepted. After delivery, the Editorial Committee assesses the manuscript for accuracy, rigor, and balance, and may route it to another Committee member or an external expert as appropriate (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准). The bar is the review-article bar, not the primary-research bar:
| Stage | What happens | What it tests |
|---|---|---|
| Commissioning | Committee invites the topic/author; scope is set | fit, author standing, ARE-shaped topic |
| Delivery | author submits the invited draft in the commissioned workflow | completeness, format, declarations |
| Committee/expert review | a Committee member and/or external referee read it | accuracy, rigor, balance, accessibility, coverage |
| Revision | author addresses comments (see arecon-revision) | gaps closed; fairness restored; spine sharpened |
| Production | production editor copyedits, sets figures, applies house style | format, references, figure quality |
| Volume publication | article appears in the annual volume (open access under S2O) | — |
Special-case integrity: if a Committee member is the author, they do not participate in reviewing their own article, which is handled by another member or external expert under the same policies (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准).
ARE runs on an annual cadence: one volume per year with fixed production deadlines (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准). This differs sharply from a rolling journal — there is no continuous queue, and a draft that misses a volume's production window can slip to the next volume. Treat the production editor's schedule as the binding constraint and plan revision time backward from it. Do not assume journal-style "decision in N months"; confirm the specific volume timeline with the editor.
Because ARE referees judge the review as a review, the predictable pushbacks are upstream-preventable:
arecon-literature-synthesis saturation log; close the gap before delivery.arecon-evidence-standards balance + self-citation audit.arecon-organizing-framework; make the spine explicit.arecon-writing-style; intuition-first.【Stage】commissioning / delivery / Committee-review / revision / production
【Bar】judged on accuracy + rigor + balance + accessibility + coverage? confirmed
【Cadence】annual volume; production deadline obtained? Y/N · 待核实
【Pre-empted pushbacks】coverage / balance / framework / accessibility / appraisal — checked? Y/N
【COI】author–Committee conflicts handled per policy? Y/N
【Next step】→ arecon-revision (after the comments) → arecon-submission (re-deliver)
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin annual-review-of-economics-skillsNegotiates ARE review scope with the Editorial Committee and anticipates what referees evaluate in a commissioned review article.
Guides negotiation of commissioned scope and anticipation of reviewer expectations for ARSoc review articles. Plans interaction with Editorial Committee and production team.
Explains the two-step proposal→invited review process for Academy of Management Annals, including deadlines, blinding, and timeline planning.