---
name: amann-review-process
description: 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).
---

# The Annals Review Process (amann-review-process)

## When to trigger

- You are deciding whether to start now or wait for the next deadline
- You need to understand who reviews what, when, and how blinding changes between stages
- You are planning a realistic timeline from proposal to published review
- A coauthor assumes Annals works like a normal journal (it does not)

## The two-step process is the defining feature

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.

## The cadence

- **Deadlines: April 1 and October 1.** Proposals are not reviewed until the deadline passes, so submitting early gains nothing on timing — but submitting late means waiting six months.
- **Proposal decision: ~6 weeks after the deadline.**
- **Two issues per year (January and July).** Plan the full-review development and revision around this rhythm.
- **Full-review development is substantial.** Budget months for reading, drafting, and likely multi-round revision with the editor — not a quick turnaround.

## Planning the timeline

1. **Pick the deadline first.** Decide which April 1 / October 1 window the proposal targets, and back-plan the proposal-writing from there.
2. **Do not over-invest before invitation.** The proposal is the gate; do enough reading to write a credible "Review scope and process" and "New insights," but do not draft the full review before you are invited.
3. **On invitation, ramp the systematic search** (`amann-literature-synthesis`) — full coverage to saturation is now required.
4. **Treat the editor as a partner** through the editor-only full-review stage (`amann-editor-strategy`); expect substantive revision rounds.
5. **Re-confirm every volatile date and rule** on the official pages before relying on them.

> 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.

## Checklist

- [ ] Understood that full reviews are submitted only after a proposal is invited (no cold full submissions)
- [ ] Target deadline (April 1 / October 1) chosen and proposal back-planned
- [ ] Aware proposals are double-blind (Associate Editors); invited full review is editor-only (AE + Editor)
- [ ] ~6-week proposal decision and Jan/Jul publishing rhythm factored into the plan
- [ ] No full-review drafting before invitation (proposal is the gate)
- [ ] Substantive, multi-round full-review revision budgeted (not a light turnaround)
- [ ] All volatile dates/rules re-confirmed on the official AOM/Annals pages (检索于 2026-06)

## Anti-patterns

- Treating Annals like a rolling-submission journal and submitting a full review cold
- Submitting the proposal early expecting a faster decision (review starts only after the deadline)
- Drafting the entire ~50-page review before the proposal is invited
- Expecting double-blind anonymity at the full-review stage (it forgoes double-blind)
- Underestimating revision depth and the six-month deadline gap if you miss a window
- Asserting current deadlines/timelines from memory rather than the live pages

## Output format

```text
【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)
```