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).
SkillScore86Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 19 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 6 of 22 without it.
Without skill27%
With skill86%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Explains that proposals undergo double-blind review.
Identifies January and July as the publication issue months.
Explains that the proposal is the primary gatekeeping stage.
and 21 more in the full report
14 fixed5 passed either way2 still failing1 broke
Pass-rate lift
+59 pp
Tokens
+30%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-36%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v119 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 14 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 14
Prompt
How many publication issues does Academy of Management Annals publish each year, and in which months do they appear? Provide a timeline assessment using standard bracketed fields.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Identifies the publication schedule as two issues per year.
Passed
Passed
Names January and July as the publication issue months.
Passed
Passed
States that full review development requires multi-round editorial revisions.
Missed
Passed
case-09 · 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.md67 linessingle file
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
Pick the deadline first. Decide which April 1 / October 1 window the proposal targets, and back-plan the proposal-writing from there.
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.
On invitation, ramp the systematic search (amann-literature-synthesis) — full coverage to saturation is now required.
Treat the editor as a partner through the editor-only full-review stage (amann-editor-strategy); expect substantive revision rounds.
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)