Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

amanthro-topic-selection

Use when deciding whether an anthropology project fits American Anthropologist (AA) and which section to target. AA is the four-field AAA flagship, so the test is significance across anthropology (sociocultural, archaeology, biological, linguistic), not single-subfield novelty. Helps frame the question and pick a section; it does not collect data or conduct fieldwork.

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

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md4.6 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Topic Selection & Fit (amanthro-topic-selection)

AA is the flagship four-field journal of the American Anthropological Association. The bar is not "new to my subfield" — it is "matters to anthropology broadly." A great paper makes a finding in sociocultural, archaeological, biological, or linguistic anthropology legible and useful to readers in the other fields. Use this skill to pressure-test fit and section before you invest.

When to trigger

  • Choosing among possible projects or framings for an AA submission
  • A reviewer/colleague said the paper feels "too narrow" or "subfield-only"
  • Deciding among Research Article and the journal's shorter/engaged sections
  • A field or community partner has reframed what the project is for

The AA fit test

A strong AA paper usually clears all four:

  1. Four-field reach. A scholar in a different subfield should see why it matters — the shared stakes are anthropology's enduring questions: culture, power, kinship, exchange, language, embodiment, deep history, human variation, colonialism and its afterlives.
  2. A real contribution, not just a description. It changes how the field thinks, theorizes, or accounts for something — a new concept, a reframing, a decisive case, a corrected record.
  3. Credible on its own methodological terms. Ethnographic, archival, material/archaeological, bioanthropological, or linguistic — each is welcome but each must be rigorous and reflexive (see amanthro-research-design).
  4. Ethically sound. The relationship to interlocutors, communities, descendants, and heritage is accountable; consent and care are part of the design, not an afterthought (see amanthro-transparency-and-data).

Reach past your home subfield

Home subfieldReach to four-field anthropology by…
Socioculturaldraw the portable concept/mechanism, not just the ethnographic particular; speak to theory others can use
Archaeologyconnect material/temporal evidence to general claims about social life, not only site chronology
Biological / physicaltie human-variation or evolutionary findings to social and cultural meaning, not biology alone
Linguisticshow what the language data reveal about culture, power, or cognition beyond the grammar
Reflexive / publicmake the methodological/ethical/political stake one the whole discipline shares

Section choice

  • Research Article — full study, broad claim, ≤ 8,000 words (extendable to ~10,500 at the editors' discretion on acceptance).
  • Vital Topics Forum — a curated multi-author debate on a pressing issue (often invited/proposed).
  • World Anthropologies — anthropology produced beyond the Anglophone center; decenters the canon.
  • Public Anthropologies / Multimodal Anthropologies — engaged, activist, or media-based work where image/sound/film is part of the argument (see amanthro-tables-figures).
  • Review Essay — a synthetic essay across 2–5 recent books (≤ 5,000 words).

Anti-patterns

  • "No one has studied community X" as the whole contribution (descriptive, subfield-only)
  • A method showcase with no anthropological payoff readers in other fields can use
  • A sprawling project that cannot be argued within the section's word cap
  • Picking Research Article out of habit when a forum, essay, or multimodal piece would land harder
  • Treating ethics/consent as a later checkbox rather than a reason the project is even askable

Output format

【Question】one sentence
【Four-field reach】who outside the subfield cares, and why
【Contribution type】concept / reframing / decisive case / corrected record
【Section】Research Article / Vital Topics / World / Public / Multimodal / Review Essay
【Ethics flag】any consent / community-accountability / heritage issue to design for now?
【Fit verdict】strong / needs reframing / off-fit (why)
【Next】amanthro-literature-positioning

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