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。
查看安装方法安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。
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)
还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。
无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问，或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。
还没有评论。来写第一条吧。
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.
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 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 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.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
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.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
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.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。