/amann-workflow

name: amann-workflow
description: 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.

Annals Workflow Router (amann-workflow)

Overview

This is the router. It tells you **which amann-* skill to use at the current stage** of a **comprehensive, integrative review article** aimed at the *Academy of Management Annals* (Annals) — the Academy of Management's **review-of-the-field journal**, published with Taylor & Francis. Annals does **not** publish original empirical research or stand-alone new theory; it publishes **authoritative, theory-advancing reviews** that synthesize a management/organization literature. Its mission is "up-to-date, in-depth and integrative reviews of research advances in management," and its house identity is **"reviews with an attitude"**: a review must take a critical, integrative stance and set an agenda, not merely catalog papers (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).

So the lifecycle is not "design → identify → estimate → defend." It is **judge whether a literature is Annals-scale → write the ≤5-page proposal (the gate) → if invited, read the whole literature → impose a novel organizing framework → appraise the evidence even-handedly → build synthesis exhibits → land the Annals voice → develop the full review through the editor-only process.** The single binding constraint at every step is the same: **does this review create a new way of seeing the field?** A review that summarizes accurately but reorganizes nothing is the canonical Annals reject.

Default assumption: unless told otherwise, treat the target as Annals and the artefact as a **comprehensive review**, not a primary paper. Tells that you are at Annals and not a sibling: the work **synthesizes other people's research** rather than reporting your own; the first deliverable is a **short proposal under a twice-yearly deadline**, not a full draft; there is **no hypothesis test or dataset of your own** — you appraise the studies you cover; the contribution is an **integrative map and agenda for a field**. If the user has original theory, route to **AMR**; original data, route to **AMJ** — say so.

When to trigger

• The user asks "what should I do next?" on a review article
• A review draft reads like an annotated bibliography and needs an organizing spine
• Work is ping-ponging between coverage, framing, evidence appraisal, and the proposal
• An Annals proposal decision or a full-review referee letter arrived and the user must switch modes

Routing table

| Current symptom | Next skill | |-----------------|------------| | Unsure the literature is mature/important/fragmented enough for Annals | `amann-topic-selection` | | Need to write the ≤5-page proposal that gates the whole process | `amann-proposal-framing` | | Reading is unsystematic; coverage gaps a referee could name are likely | `amann-literature-synthesis` | | Draft is a list of papers, not an argument about the field | `amann-organizing-framework` | | Appraisal of cumulative evidence / balance across schools feels off | `amann-evidence-standards` | | Need who-found-what tables or a framework diagram | `amann-tables-figures` | | Prose is descriptive/jargon-laden; the "attitude" and agenda are missing | `amann-writing-style` | | Negotiating scope with the editor or anticipating review-article referees | `amann-editor-strategy` | | Ready to submit a proposal or invited full review via Manuscript Central | `amann-submission` | | Need to understand the two-step proposal→invited-review choreography and timelines | `amann-review-process` | | Received a proposal decision or full-review referee letter | `amann-revision` |

Default order

1. `amann-topic-selection` — confirm the literature is Annals-scale (mature, important, fragmented, integrable) 2. `amann-proposal-framing` — write the ≤5-page, four-heading proposal (the gate) 3. `amann-literature-synthesis` — once invited, read the field systematically to saturation 4. `amann-organizing-framework` — impose the novel integrative spine (the acceptance bar) 5. `amann-evidence-standards` — appraise cumulative evidence and balance across schools 6. `amann-tables-figures` — synthesis tables and the signature framework figure 7. `amann-writing-style` — the authoritative, agenda-setting "attitude" voice (intro + abstract last) 8. `amann-editor-strategy` — scope negotiation and review-article referee expectations 9. `amann-submission` — Manuscript Central preflight (proposal or invited full review) 10. `amann-review-process` — the proposal→invited-review process and twice-yearly cadence 11. `amann-revision` — after the proposal decision or full-review letter

> `amann-writing-style` is a late polish; do not rewrite the intro before the framework and evidence appraisal settle. The **proposal comes early and is the gate** — at Annals you cannot submit a full review cold, so `amann-proposal-framing` precedes the heavy reading.

Anti-patterns

• Submitting a full review cold — Annals is **proposal-first**; an uninvited full manuscript is out of process (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)
• Treating the review as an annotated bibliography with no integrative framework — the named Annals reject
• Producing a descriptive map with no "attitude": no critique, no reconciliation, no agenda
• Centering the review on the author's own program (self-promotion; review-article referees punish this)
• Confusing Annals with **AMR** (original theory) or **AMJ** (empirical) — Annals is the review-of-the-field
• Missing the April 1 / October 1 proposal windows because the team treated intake as rolling

Routing by review archetype

A "review" is not one thing; the bottleneck differs by type. Read the archetype, then enter the chain at the right link.

| Archetype | Likely first bottleneck | Enter at | |-----------|---------------------