Use when deciding whether a project is a strong AAAI submission across its broad AI scope, should be reframed or routed to a dedicated track such as AI for Social Impact or AI Alignment, or should instead go to IJCAI, NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, AISTATS, UAI, ACL, CVPR, KDD, CHI, ICRA, or another specialist venue.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
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.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when packaging AAMAS multiagent code, environments, opponent and population sets, random seeds, game definitions, and logs as anonymous supplementary evidence or a public post-acceptance release, even without a separate artifact badge, so that game-theory and MARL reviewers can inspect and re-run the interaction claims.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
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.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when preparing an accepted AAMAS paper for the IFAAMAS open-access camera-ready, covering author de-anonymization, proceedings metadata, two-column reflow of game figures and learning curves, resolving rebuttal-stage promises, registration, in-person presentation, and the public code and environment release for a multiagent paper.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when preparing AAMAS supplementary material - proofs, extended game and mechanism definitions, extra multiagent experiments, opponent-set details, and the anonymized artifact zip - under the size cap, anonymity, and reviewer-discretion limits, including how to split a game-theory-plus-experiments paper across the 8-page body and the supplement.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when systematically gathering, coding, and synthesizing a management/organization literature for an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review — the search-and-coverage methodology and the choice of narrative vs. systematic vs. bibliometric integration. Builds the corpus and synthesis notes; it does not impose the organizing spine (amann-organizing-framework) or write prose.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use for full-manuscript prose polish of an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript — front-loading the argument, active voice, structure, and AOM house style. Polishes language and structure; it does not create the theoretical contribution (amj-contribution-framing) or fix the analysis (amj-data-analysis).
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when appraising the cumulative evidence and ensuring balance in an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review — weighing conflicting findings by credibility, steelmanning rival schools, and handling the author's own work even-handedly. Audits evidence quality and fairness; it does not design the framework (amann-organizing-framework) or build exhibits (amann-tables-figures).
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when building exhibits for an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review — the signature framework figure, who-studied-what synthesis tables, and search/coverage exhibits that summarize across a literature. Designs review exhibits; it does not produce original-estimate regression tables (an Annals review reports no new data of its own).
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when explaining or planning around AAMAS peer review, covering OpenReview review release, the double-blind rebuttal on preliminary reviews, area-chair discussion, the mixed game-theory, MARL, and systems reviewer pool, the public posting of reviews and decisions, and how acceptance criteria weigh the interaction contribution.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when strengthening AAMAS reproducibility evidence for interaction claims, including proofs and game definitions, opponent and population sets, self-play protocols, random seeds, compute, uncertainty on strategic outcomes, baselines, and consistency between what the paper claims about agents and what the artifact can actually show.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when deciding which amann-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a comprehensive review article from topic selection through revision for an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when revising an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review for the house voice — authoritative, integrative, agenda-setting "reviews with an attitude," with a strong problem-first opening and a contribution-stating abstract. Polishes prose and structure; it does not design the framework (amann-organizing-framework) or run the submission preflight (amann-submission).
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when writing the short proposal that gates an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review — the ≤5-page, four-heading proposal submitted under the twice-yearly deadlines before any full review is invited. Builds the proposal; it does not gather the literature (amann-literature-synthesis) or run the portal preflight (amann-submission).
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when the research design and method are the bottleneck for an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript — matching design (archival, survey, experiment, multi-method, field) and level of analysis to the theoretical question. Designs the study; it does not run the estimation or validity checks (amj-data-analysis).
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when the front end of an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript needs to engage the right literatures and stake a clear position in an ongoing theoretical conversation. Positions the paper among theories; it does not derive the hypotheses (amj-theory-development) or write the contribution paragraph (amj-contribution-framing).
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when running and reporting the statistical analysis for an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript — measurement validity, common-method bias, the right estimator (HLM, SEM, panel, experiments), endogeneity, and robustness. Executes and reports the analysis; it does not design the study (amj-methods) or frame the contribution (amj-contribution-framing).
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
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.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when responding to an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) proposal decision or full-review referee letter — framework/attitude asks, coverage gaps, balance complaints, and accessibility. Drafts the response letter and revision plan; it does not run the portal preflight (amann-submission) or redesign the framework from scratch (amann-organizing-framework).
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
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).
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when building the novel integrative framework that an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review must deliver — the theory-advancing "new way of seeing the field" that is the acceptance bar, not a catalog of papers. Designs the spine; it does not gather the literature (amann-literature-synthesis) or appraise evidence balance (amann-evidence-standards).
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when working with the Associate Editor and Editor of an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review — scope alignment after a proposal is invited, what review-article referees evaluate, and revision expectations. Plans the interaction; it does not run the portal preflight (amann-submission) or draft the response letter (amann-revision).
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when auditing an AAMAS main-track submission for OpenReview readiness, the 8-page-plus-references limit, the full-paper versus 2-page extended-abstract choice, double-blind anonymity, the supplementary zip cap, track fit across the AAAI/JAAMAS/Blue Sky tracks, dual-submission rules, and desk-reject triggers before upload.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。