Use when you need to understand how the Annals of the American Association of Geographers evaluates a manuscript — double-anonymous review routed through a subject editor by area, 1-3 referees (one being the editor or designate), decision categories, and what desk-rejects a paper. Sets expectations; it does not write the paper or the response letter.
SkillScore95Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 21 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 14 of 22 without it.
Without skill64%
With skill95%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
The response specifies that evaluation involves 1 to 3 referees.
The response identifies Geographic Methods as the editorial track.
The response states that evaluation is conducted by 1 to 3 referees.
and 7 more in the full report
7 fixed14 passed either way1 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+32 pp
Tokens
+33%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-29%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v121 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 7 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 7
Prompt
What is the maximum inclusive word limit for standard article submissions to the Annals of the American Association of Geographers before incurring desk rejection for length?
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
The response states the maximum word limit as 11,000 words inclusive.
Missed
Passed
case-05 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/15/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md90 linessingle file
Review Process (aaag-review-process)
Knowing how the Annals judges a paper lets you pre-empt the objections that sink it. Submissions are
routed to a subject editor by area, reviewed double-anonymously, and held to the broad
four-area flagship's bar. Confirm volatile specifics on the official pages (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
When to trigger
Before submission, to stress-test against likely reviewer and editor objections
Choosing the area so the right subject editor and reviewers handle the paper
Interpreting a decision letter before drafting a response (aaag-rebuttal)
How the Annals reviews (verify current wording)
Editorial structure. A subject editor leads each area — Geographic Methods; Human Geography;
Nature and Society; Physical Geography, Earth & Environmental Sciences — plus a General
Geography / cross-disciplinary editor and a Cartography Editor. Editors serve four-year terms
(current editors are volatile — 检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
Review model.Double-anonymous peer review for Articles, Special Issues, Forums, and
Commentaries, by one to three referees, one of whom is the editor or a designate. Commentary
Responses undergo single-anonymous review.
Decision categories. Accept / minor revision / major revision (revise-and-resubmit) / reject —
exact labels vary; treat a major revision as a genuine, scoped invitation.
What gets a paper desk-rejected or rejected early
Trigger
Why it fails
Pre-empt with
Not really geography
space/place/scale is decorative
aaag-topic-selection (delete-test)
Wrong area / wrong venue
specialty-venue increment to the flagship
aaag-topic-selection, aaag-literature-positioning
Over the word cap / format off
exceeds 11,000 inclusive; non-Chicago
aaag-writing-style, aaag-submission
Spatial method not defended
autocorrelation/MAUP/validation ignored
aaag-research-design, aaag-data-analysis
Atheoretical
descriptive mapping, no concept
aaag-theory-building
Cartography below standard
artifactual maps, no projection/legend
aaag-tables-figures
Area-aware reviewer expectations
Methods reviewers probe inference, generality beyond one dataset, and spatial assumptions.
Human reviewers probe theoretical engagement, positionality, and interpretive rigor.
Nature-Society reviewers check that both sides are theorized and integrated.