--- name: curranthro-workflow description: Use when starting or navigating any Current Anthropology (CA) manuscript as the entry point. Routes to the right CA sub-skill based on lifecycle stage, subfield (sociocultural, archaeology, biological, linguistic), and article type (Major Article under the CA✩ Treatment, Report, Forum, Discussion/Comment). It dispatches; it does not draft content. --- # CA Workflow Router (curranthro-workflow) The orchestrator for a *Current Anthropology* submission. Figure out the **stage**, the **subfield**, and the **article type**, then send the user to the matching skill. CA is the transnational, all-fields journal **published by the University of Chicago Press for the Wenner-Gren Foundation**, and its defining feature is the **CA✩ Treatment**: an accepted Major Article is circulated to invited commentators whose **signed Comments are published alongside it**, followed by the **author's Reply**. The router's first job is to make sure the work is built to *survive and reward* that public, multi-voice scrutiny. ## When to trigger - Starting a new CA paper and unsure where to begin - Mid-project and unsure which skill applies next - Deciding which **article type** fits (Major Article vs. Report vs. Forum vs. Discussion/Comment) - Returning with a decision letter or with **published Comments to reply to** (route to `curranthro-rebuttal`) ## First questions: subfield and article type | Situation | Article type | Route to | |-----------|--------------|----------| | Field-shaping theoretical/methodological intervention, broad reach | **Major Article** (6,000–10,000 words) → gets the **CA✩ Treatment** | normal pipeline below | | Sharp finding, provocation, or new framework, shorter | **Report** (3,000–5,000 words) | `curranthro-topic-selection` + `curranthro-data-analysis` | | Curated multi-author debate on a pressing issue | **Forum** | `curranthro-topic-selection` + `curranthro-writing-style` | | Critique/reply to a CA piece from the last ~8 months | **Discussion / Comment** (≤ 800 words) | `curranthro-rebuttal` + `curranthro-writing-style` | | Bridging academic and applied work | **Current Applications** (open-access section) | `curranthro-topic-selection` | > CA spans all subfields: **sociocultural, archaeology, biological/physical, linguistic** (plus > ethnohistory, prehistory, applied). Method and ethics demands differ by subfield — name yours before > routing (see `curranthro-research-design`). Only **Major Articles** get the full CA✩ commentary. ## Routing map (stage → skill) ```text Idea / fit / article type? → curranthro-topic-selection Where does it sit in the field? → curranthro-literature-positioning What's the conceptual argument? → curranthro-theory-building Is the fieldwork/design sound? → curranthro-research-design Is the analysis/inference sound? → curranthro-data-analysis Are exhibits clear & ethical? → curranthro-tables-figures Does it read across the fields? → curranthro-writing-style Ethics, consent, accountability? → curranthro-transparency-and-data How does CA✩ review work? → curranthro-review-process Ready to submit? → curranthro-submission Got Comments / an R&R? → curranthro-rebuttal ``` ## Default order `topic-selection → literature-positioning → theory-building → research-design → data-analysis → tables-figures → writing-style → transparency-and-data → review-process → submission → rebuttal` Iterate: ethnographic and theory-driven papers loop theory ↔ fieldwork ↔ interpretation many times, and the **ethics-and-accountability** check (`curranthro-transparency-and-data`) should run *early* and again before submission. The **CA✩** logic also runs throughout — from `topic-selection` onward, ask "who are my likely commentators, and what will they attack?" ## CA✩ fit check (run before routing to the next skill) | Check | Pass condition | Route if weak | |-------|----------------|---------------| | Reach | A scholar in another subfield (e.g., a linguist reading an archaeology paper) can state why it matters to anthropology writ large. | `curranthro-topic-selection` | | Commentary worthiness | The argument is bold and synthetic enough that international commentators would have something substantive to debate. | `curranthro-theory-building` | | Mode honesty | The method (ethnographic, archival, material, lab) is defended in its own idiom, not forced into a quantitative template. | `curranthro-research-design` | | Ethics of care | Consent, anonymization, heritage/repatriation obligations have an explicit plan. | `curranthro-transparency-and-data` | If the paper fails the reach or commentary-worthiness check, do not route to writing-style — a CA Major Article that no one would bother commenting on is not yet a CA Major Article. ## Anti-patterns - Treating CA like a one-subfield outlet — the Major Article should reach all of anthropology - Forgetting the **CA✩ Treatment** exists: writing a paper that cannot withstand published, signed Comments - Confusing CA with its siblings: it is **not** *American Anthropologist* (AAA flagship, no comment apparatus), *American Ethnologist*, or *Cultural Anthropology* — CA is **Wenner-Gren-sponsored** and defined by the comment-and-reply format - Forcing ethnographic/interpretive work into a hypothesis-test template - Deferring ethics, consent, and anonymization to the end (they are design decisions) ## Output format ``` 【Stage】idea / positioning / theory / design / analysis / exhibits / writing / ethics / review / submit / reply 【Subfield】sociocultural / archaeology / biological / linguistic / ethnohistory-applied 【Article type】Major Article (CA✩) / Report / Forum / Discussion-Comment / Current Applications 【Route to】curranthro- 【Why】one line 【Then】the next skill after that ``` ## Supplementary resources - [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — anthropology data sources, archives, CAQDAS, lab/quant tooling by subfield - [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — official CA / Wenner-Gren / UChicago Press URLs behind every fact in this pack