Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

amann-submission

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) proposal or invited full review via the Manuscript Central portal — proposal-vs-invited-review route, deadlines, formatting, CV, and anonymity. Final checks; it does not draft content.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Files included (3)

  • SKILL.md4.6 KB
  • templates/checklist.md851 B
  • templates/manuscript_template.md1007 B

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Submission Preflight (amann-submission)

When to trigger

  • A deadline is near — last check before uploading a proposal to Manuscript Central
  • A proposal was accepted and you are submitting the invited full review
  • Confirming format, CV, and anonymity requirements for the right route
  • Unsure which files the portal expects for a proposal vs. a full review

Process facts (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准 — re-confirm on the AOM/Annals pages)

  • Publisher / venue. Annals is the Academy of Management's review-of-the-field journal, published with Taylor & Francis. It is distinct from AMR (original theory) and AMJ (empirical). Submission is via Manuscript Central: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aomannals.
  • Two routes, in order. (1) Proposal — the mandatory gate: ≤5 pages, single-spaced, 1-inch margins, 12pt, with the four headings (Focus of the review / Related reviews / Review scope and process / New insights); references and visuals do not count. (2) Invited full review — submitted only after a proposal is accepted; typically ~50 pages of text plus tables/figures/refs.
  • Deadlines. Proposals are on a twice-yearly cycle — April 1 and October 1; not reviewed until the deadline passes; decisions ~6 weeks after the deadline. Two issues publish per year (January and July).
  • Anonymity. Proposals are double-blind (reviewed by the Associate Editors) — anonymize the proposal. The invited full review forgoes double-blind (read by the Associate Editor and Editor), so anonymity requirements differ between the two routes — confirm current rules on the portal.
  • CV. A current CV may be required for the editors' eyes only (not seen by reviewers) — confirm at submission (待核实).
  • Style / format. Follow the current Annals/Taylor & Francis author guidelines for manuscript format and references (house style 待核实 — confirm APA vs. other on the live page). Length, abstract, and exact formatting specifics are volatile.
  • Fees / APC. Any submission fee or APC is volatile — re-confirm on the official pages; do not assert an amount.

Preflight checklist

Route & files

  • Route chosen: proposal (≤5pp, four headings) or invited full review (after acceptance)
  • Proposal uses the four required headings verbatim and meets the ≤5pp / single-spaced / 1-in / 12pt limit
  • Targeting the correct April 1 / October 1 deadline
  • Full review (if invited) within the expected ~50-page norm; tables/figures/refs prepared

Front matter

  • Title, abstract (review-style — contribution to the field), and keywords present
  • Author affiliations complete; CV prepared if required (editors-only)

Anonymity & declarations

  • Proposal anonymized for double-blind review (proposal route)
  • Full-review anonymity handled per current rules (it forgoes double-blind)
  • Confirmed not under review elsewhere; AI not listed as an author

Volatile re-confirms

  • Portal specifics, fee/APC, CV requirement, house style, anonymity — re-checked on AOM/Annals pages (检索于 2026-06)

Anti-patterns

  • Uploading a full review without an accepted proposal — out of process at Annals
  • A proposal that exceeds 5 pages or omits one of the four required headings
  • Missing the April 1 / October 1 window because intake was assumed to be rolling
  • Asserting a fee/APC or editor name from memory rather than the live page
  • Failing to anonymize the proposal (it is double-blind) or mishandling the full-review anonymity difference
  • A primary-paper abstract on a review submission

Output format

【Route】proposal (≤5pp, 4 headings) / invited full review (~50pp)
【Deadline】targeting April 1 / October 1? <which>
【Proposal headings】Focus / Related reviews / Scope & process / New insights present? Y/N
【Anonymity】proposal anonymized (double-blind); full-review rule confirmed? Y/N
【CV】prepared if required (editors-only)? Y/N
【Volatile re-confirms】portal / fee / style / anonymity checked on AOM page? Y/N
【Next step】submit via Manuscript Central → amann-review-process for what to expect

Supplementary resources

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Use when packaging AAAI code, data, multimedia appendices, technical appendices, reproducibility evidence, and post-acceptance artifact releases without violating double-blind or immutable-supplement rules.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when drafting an AAAI author response (rebuttal) under the single short character-limited author-feedback window, the no-URL rule, no-new-results guidance, AI-generated-review handling, and the AAAI two-phase review process where Phase-2 papers receive one feedback round before SPC/AC discussion.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when preparing an accepted AAAI paper for camera-ready source submission to AAAI Press, including proceedings page limits, two-column template compliance, copyright transfer, purchased extra technical pages, deanonymization, registration, oral or poster presentation, and final public artifact release.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when designing or auditing AAAI experiments for the broad-AI program committee, including baselines, ablations, statistical significance, robustness, human evaluation, AI-for-Social-Impact and alignment/safety evidence, compute and cost reporting, and reproducibility-checklist alignment for Phase-1 survival.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when positioning an AAAI paper's novelty against archival work, contemporaneous arXiv or workshop papers, and AAAI/IJCAI/NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR neighbors across the broad AI scope, while staying inside AAAI's dual-submission and AI-as-source policy constraints and writing a related-work section legible to non-specialist reviewers.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when strengthening an AAAI paper's reproducibility checklist (placed after references), experimental traceability, seed and hyperparameter reporting, compute and cost disclosure, dataset access and licensing, code/data ZIP readiness, and the claim-to-evidence map that Phase-1 reviewers use to judge rigor across AAAI's broad AI scope.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

See all skills by brycewang-stanford

Report a problem with this skill