Use when planning around the two-step proposal→invited-review process of the Academy of Management Annals (Annals) — the twice-yearly proposal cadence, double-blind proposal review, the editor-only full-review development, and timelines. Explains the process; it does not write the proposal (amann-proposal-framing) or run the portal preflight (amann-submission).
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
실행 점수 미검증
설치 방법 보기설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.
Annals does not accept full reviews cold. Intake is a gated, two-step process (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准):
| Stage | What happens | Blinding & reviewers | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Proposal | Submit a ≤5-page proposal (four headings) at a deadline | Double-blind, reviewed by the Associate Editors | Invitation to develop the full review, or decline |
| 2. Invited full review | Develop the ~50-page review with editorial guidance | Forgoes double-blind; read by the Associate Editor and Editor | Conditional acceptance / revisions / decline |
The consequences are large: most of the gatekeeping happens at the lightweight proposal stage, and most of the development happens collaboratively with an editor who already endorsed the idea. This is closer to commissioning than to ordinary peer review — you are co-building an invited piece, not throwing a finished manuscript over the wall.
amann-literature-synthesis) — full coverage to saturation is now required.amann-editor-strategy); expect substantive revision rounds.Strategic implication: because the proposal is cheap to write and the full review is expensive, the highest-leverage move is a great proposal. Failing fast at the proposal stage saves months; over-building before invitation wastes them.
【Stage】proposal (double-blind, AEs) / invited full review (editor-only, AE+Editor)
【Target deadline】April 1 / October 1 → <which>; proposal back-planned? Y/N
【Pre-invitation discipline】no full-review drafting before invitation? Y/N
【Timeline】~6-week proposal decision + Jan/Jul rhythm factored in? Y/N
【Revision budget】substantive multi-round development planned? Y/N
【Volatile re-confirms】deadlines / blinding / timelines checked on official pages? Y/N
【Next skill】→ amann-submission (preflight) or amann-revision (after a decision)
아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.
로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.
아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.
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.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
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.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
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.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
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.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
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.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
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.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.