Use when you need to understand how American Anthropologist (AA) evaluates a manuscript — editorial screening, anonymous peer review under an ethics of care, the four-field editorial board, decision categories, and how section choice shapes the path. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.
SkillScore95Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 21 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 19 of 22 without it.
Without skill86%
With skill95%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
The response identifies the screening body as a four-field editorial board.
The response notes that reviewers evaluate author positionality as part of the evidence and rigor assessment.
2 fixed19 passed either way1 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+9 pp
Tokens
+29%
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 2 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 2
Prompt
When a manuscript undergoes initial editorial screening at American Anthropologist, who performs this first check prior to peer review?
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
The response states that initial screening is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors.
Passed
Passed
The response identifies the screening body as a four-field editorial board.
Missed
Passed
case-13 · 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.md82 linessingle file
Review Process (amanthro-review-process)
Knowing how AA screens and decides lets you pre-empt the failure modes before submitting. AA is the
four-field AAA flagship, uses anonymous peer review, and explicitly practices an ethics of care
toward authors and reviewers — but the editorial bar is still four-field significance plus sound,
ethical evidence.
When to trigger
Before submitting, to stress-test against editorial screening grounds
Choosing the right section (the review path differs for forums, multimodal, review essays)
Interpreting a decision letter and setting expectations
Understanding what reviewers are asked to weigh, including ethics
How AA review works
Editorial screening first. The editor-in-chief and associate editors (a four-field board)
assess fit, four-field significance, and obvious ethics issues before sending out for review. A
technically fine but subfield-bound paper can be returned or redirected here.
Anonymous peer review. Reviewers typically do not see author identities; anonymize the manuscript
and file name and provide a separate title page (see amanthro-submission). Expect expert,
sometimes cross-subfield, reviewers.
Ethics of care. AA states it strives for an ethics of care in editing and asks reviewers to do
the same — constructive, non-destructive review. This does not lower the bar; it shapes the tone.
Decision categories. Reject; major or minor revisions (revise-and-resubmit); accept. R&R is the
common positive outcome; exact portal labels and acceptance-rate figures are not fixed in this pack.
Section-specific paths. Vital Topics Forums and special sections are often invited or proposed
(and AA may not always be accepting proposals); Multimodal and Public Anthropologies have their own
editors and expectations; Review Essays are commissioned or pitched.
Shape the paper to pass
Make four-field significance explicit early (avoids the "subfield-only" redirect).
Engage the relevant conversations, including across subfields and beyond the metropolitan canon.
Clear ethics up front: consent, anonymization, heritage/repatriation, community accountability —
an unresolved ethics concern is a serious problem at AA (see amanthro-transparency-and-data).
Match the section to the work; don't send a 1,500-word engaged piece through the Research-Article
path or a full study to a forum.
Use to understand how the American Political Science Review (APSR) evaluates a manuscript — double-anonymous review, desk-rejection screening (remit / ethics / substance), the reject / accept / revise-and-resubmit decision categories, editor discretion, and the Registered Reports route. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.