Use when you need to understand the Academy of Management Review (AMR) developmental, multi-round review and interpret a decision letter focused on theoretical novelty and logical soundness. Explains the process and decision types; it does NOT draft the response document (that is amr-rebuttal).
SkillScore83Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 19 of 23 test cases with the skill, and 12 of 23 without it.
Without skill50%
With skill83%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Designates amr-rebuttal as the next step.
Includes the 【Skill mapping】 bracketed header.
Includes the bracketed header 【Skill mapping】.
and 13 more in the full report
8 fixed12 passed either way4 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+33 pp
Tokens
+27%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-29%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v120 of 24 cases passed with skill · 23 comparable
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
The editor noted in our decision letter: 'Propositions are not well supported by the argument.' Break down this letter into the standard structured triage schema.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Maps logic gaps in propositions to amr-data-analysis or amr-theory-development.
Missed
Passed
Includes the 【Skill mapping】 bracketed header.
Missed
Passed
case-08 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/15/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
You just received an AMR decision letter and need to interpret it
You do not know what "developmental review" means or what is expected of you
You are deciding whether an R&R is worth pursuing and how to read the editor's signals
You need to triage reviewer comments by what AMR actually weights
What AMR review is (durable norms)
AMR uses a double-anonymous, multi-round, developmental review. "Developmental" is the
operative word: the goal is to help promising theory papers become stronger, so reviews are
detailed and the bar rises across rounds. Verify current specifics on the official page, but
the durable shape is:
A handling editor (the Editor-in-Chief — currently Kris Byron (Georgia State University), AMR EIC succeeding Sherry M. B. Thatcher; three-year term runs through the end of 2026 (1 July 2023 transition start), still sitting as of 2026-06-23 with no successor yet announced; verify the current slate on the AOM AMR editorial-leadership page — or an action editor) assigns the paper to reviewers expert in your conversation. AOM's public author page says designated reviewers advise the editor and that revisions may continue through multiple rounds; it does not publish an exact AMR reviewer count or acceptance rate, so do not quote one unless AOM publishes it.
Reviews focus on the things AMR exists to protect: a genuine theoretical contribution (Whetten's What/How/Why/Who-Where-When, AMR 1989, DOI 10.5465/amr.1989.4308371), construct clarity (Suddaby, AMR 2010, DOI 10.5465/amr.2010.0419), and the logical soundness of the argument — not data (there is none). Reviewers do not ask about identification, sample size, robustness, or measurement validity; those are AMJ/ASQ/SMJ criteria.
Decisions are commonly: Reject; Reject & Resubmit (encouraged to rebuild, treated
as a fresh submission); Major Revision (R&R); less often Minor Revision; rarely an
immediate Accept.
An R&R is an invitation, not a promise. Multiple rounds are normal at AMR.
Desk-reject triggers specific to AMR
The editor screens for fit and contribution before sending a paper out. Most common AMR desk
rejects: (1) "this is an empirical paper"; (2) incremental theory; (3) a literature review
with no original move; (4) construct proliferation (relabeling); (5) untestable-in-principle
or tautological propositions; (6) poor fit/scope or anonymization failures.
Reading the decision letter
Signal in the letter
What it usually means
Your move
"Promising but the contribution is not yet clear"
Theory may be sound but under-differentiated
Re-run amr-contribution-framing
"Propositions are not well supported by the argument"
Logic gaps between premises and propositions
Re-run amr-data-analysis, then amr-theory-development