amann-workflow

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

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.

Minimal decision snippet

if proposal_decision_or_referee_letter:  -> amann-revision
elif understanding_two_step_process:     -> amann-review-process
elif ready_to_submit:                    -> amann-submission
elif scope_or_referee_anticipation:      -> amann-editor-strategy
elif prose_descriptive_no_attitude:      -> amann-writing-style
elif need_tables_or_framework_figure:    -> amann-tables-figures
elif evidence_appraisal_or_balance_off:  -> amann-evidence-standards
elif reads_like_a_list:                  -> amann-organizing-framework
elif reading_unsystematic:               -> amann-literature-synthesis
elif no_proposal_yet:                     -> amann-proposal-framing
else:                                     -> amann-topic-selection