Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› amann-proposal-framing
amann-proposal-framing
GitHub用于撰写提交至《管理学年鉴》的≤5页四部分提案，作为进入正式评审的前置门槛。明确提案结构、字数限制及4月/10月双周期截点，强调通过双盲同行评审以获取全文邀请资格。
Trigger Scenarios
准备向Annals提交前置提案
临近4月或10月投稿截止日
需确认提案具体结构与要求
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill amann-proposal-framing -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "amann-proposal-framing",
"description": "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)."
}
Proposal Framing — the Gate (amann-proposal-framing)
When to trigger
- The literature passed
amann-topic-selectionand you are ready to approach Annals - You need to know exactly what the proposal must contain and how long it can be
- You are about to write a full review — stop: at Annals the proposal is mandatory and comes first
- An April 1 / October 1 deadline is approaching and the proposal is the deliverable
How Annals intake actually works (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)
Annals uses a two-step, proposal-first process. You do not submit a full review cold; you submit a short proposal, and only an accepted proposal is invited to develop into a full article.
- Proposal length. No longer than 5 pages, single-spaced, 1-inch margins, 12-point font; references and visual elements do not count toward the limit.
- Four required sections, with these exact headings:
- Focus of the review — the literature and the animating problem.
- Related reviews — what reviews already exist and why yours is not redundant.
- Review scope and process — boundaries, inclusion logic, how you will gather and synthesize the corpus.
- New insights — the integrative contribution, the "attitude," and the agenda the review will produce.
- Deadlines. Proposals are accepted on a twice-yearly cycle — April 1 and October 1. Submissions are not reviewed until the deadline passes; decision letters arrive ~6 weeks after the deadline.
- Who reviews the proposal. Proposals are double-blind peer-reviewed by the Associate Editors. (The invited full review later forgoes double-blind and is read only by the AE and Editor — see
amann-review-process.) - Portal. Submit via Manuscript Central:
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aomannals. A current CV may be requested for the editors' eyes only — confirm at submission time (待核实).
The ≤5-page proposal is the single most consequential document in the Annals lifecycle: it is the gate. A strong proposal earns an invitation before you sink months into reading and drafting; a weak one ends the project regardless of how good the eventual review would have been. Treat it as a high-stakes argument, not an outline.
What each heading must accomplish
| Heading | What it must do | Common failure |
|---|---|---|
| Focus of the review | Name the literature and the problem with the field (from amann-topic-selection), not just the topic |
A topic label ("a review of X") with no problem |
| Related reviews | Show command of prior reviews and stake the delta — what yours does that none did | Claiming "no review exists" instead of differentiating from the ones that do |
| Review scope and process | State boundaries, inclusion/exclusion logic, databases, and the synthesis method (narrative / systematic / bibliometric) | Vague "we will read the literature" with no transparent process |
| New insights | Lead with the integrative framework and the agenda — the new way of seeing the field, with attitude | A promise of "comprehensive coverage" and no new organizing idea |
The center of gravity is New insights: Associate Editors are deciding whether this review will reorganize the field, not whether it will summarize it. A proposal that nails coverage but offers no framework is the most common proposal-stage reject.
Checklist
- Proposal is ≤5 pages, single-spaced, 1-inch margins, 12pt (refs/visuals excluded)
- Uses the four required headings verbatim: Focus / Related reviews / Review scope and process / New insights
- "Focus" states a problem with the field, not a topic label
- "Related reviews" differentiates from existing reviews (delta), not "none exists"
- "Review scope and process" names boundaries, inclusion logic, databases, and synthesis method
- "New insights" leads with the integrative framework + agenda + the critical "attitude"
- Targeted at the correct April 1 / October 1 window
- Balance addressed if you are a contributor to the literature
- Portal, CV requirement, and any current specifics re-confirmed (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准 / 待核实)
Anti-patterns
- Writing the full ~50-page review and trying to submit it — Annals invites full reviews only after proposal acceptance
- A proposal that is a chapter outline with no integrative idea under "New insights"
- "Related reviews" that asserts novelty by ignoring the reviews that already exist (reviewers will name them)
- A "Review scope and process" section with no inclusion logic or named databases (looks unsystematic)
- Promising comprehensive coverage as if coverage alone were the contribution
- Missing the deadline and assuming rolling intake
Output format
【Focus of the review】<literature + animating problem, one sentence>
【Related reviews】<existing reviews + the delta yours provides>
【Review scope and process】<boundaries / inclusion logic / databases / synthesis method>
【New insights】<integrative framework + agenda + the critical attitude>
【Length check】≤5pp single-spaced, 1-in margins, 12pt (refs/visuals excluded)? Y/N
【Deadline】targeting April 1 / October 1? <which>
【Balance note】<how author's own work is handled, if a contributor>
【Open verifications】portal / CV / specifics re-confirmed on official page? Y/N
【Next skill】→ amann-literature-synthesis (begin systematic reading) after invitation
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:13
