Skip to content
FunCoding

Search

Search docs, Skills and MCP

amann-editor-strategy

Use when working with the Associate Editor and Editor of an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review — scope alignment after a proposal is invited, what review-article referees evaluate, and revision expectations. Plans the interaction; it does not run the portal preflight (amann-submission) or draft the response letter (amann-revision).

文档与办公1.2kAcademy-of-Management-Annals-Skills/skills/amann-editor-strategy/SKILL.md

Install

Send this to Claude Code, Codex or Cursor. The agent checks the Skill for safety first and installs it only after you confirm.

读取 https://funcoding.ai/skills/brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills/amann-editor-strategy/install.md ,按里面的步骤帮我安装这个 Skill。

SKILL.md

Editor & Referee Strategy for a Review (amann-editor-strategy)

When to trigger

  • A proposal was invited and you are aligning the full review's scope with the editor
  • You want to anticipate what Annals referees of a review push on (different from a paper)
  • The editor has asked you to expand, cut, sharpen the framework, or rebalance coverage
  • You are calibrating revision depth and the twice-yearly cadence

The editor relationship at Annals is unusually direct

Annals' process makes the editor your central partner — more than at most journals. The proposal is reviewed double-blind by the Associate Editors, but once invited, the full review forgoes double-blind and is developed primarily with the Associate Editor and Editor (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准). You are effectively co-developing the review with an expert editor who already endorsed the idea. Use that:

  • The proposal is the scope contract. The four headings you committed to (Focus / Related reviews / Review scope and process / New insights) define what was invited. Departing from them silently is the fastest way to lose editor confidence — renegotiate explicitly if the literature pushes you elsewhere.
  • Lead with the framework in every editor exchange. The editor invited a new way of seeing the field. Decisions about coverage, length, and balance should be argued from whether they strengthen the framework and agenda.
  • Surface conflicts of interest early. If a likely referee is a central author you must critique, tell the editor; it protects the process and you.
  • Calibrate the cadence. Annals runs on a twice-yearly proposal cycle and publishes two issues a year; full-review development and revision can be substantial and multi-round. Plan for real revision effort, not cosmetic edits.

How review differs for a review article

Annals referees do not check an identification strategy or replicate results — there are none. They evaluate the review as a review:

Referee questionWhat they are really checking
Is there a genuine integrative framework?the spine vs. an annotated bibliography (amann-organizing-framework) — the acceptance bar
Does it have "attitude"?a critical, agenda-setting position grounded in evidence, not a neutral tour (amann-writing-style)
Is the coverage complete and systematic?saturation + transparent search; can they name an omitted stream? (amann-literature-synthesis)
Is it balanced and fair?even-handedness across schools; no self-promotion (amann-evidence-standards)
Are the appraisals accurate?does the author characterize each study and its limits correctly
Is it the right scope?broad enough for general interest, but coverable in one ~50-page article

Referees of a review are often the reviewed authors themselves — the people whose work you weigh will read how you weighed it. Balance and accurate attribution are therefore strategic, not just ethical.

A useful frame: the editor recruits referees partly to test the framework, coverage, and fairness, not to re-run statistics. A referee who finds "no real framework," who can name an omitted stream, or who feels their school was caricatured is the single most common cause of a major-revision verdict — all preventable upstream by amann-organizing-framework, amann-literature-synthesis, and amann-evidence-standards.

Checklist

  • Full-review scope reconciled with the invited proposal's four headings; departures renegotiated explicitly
  • Every editor exchange argued from whether it strengthens the framework and agenda
  • Anticipated the six review-referee questions (framework, attitude, coverage, balance, appraisal, scope)
  • Coverage-expansion asks evaluated against the framework before agreeing
  • Conflicts of interest (referees who are reviewed authors) flagged to the editor
  • Attribution and appraisals double-checked, knowing reviewed authors may referee
  • Revision depth and the twice-yearly cadence calibrated from official pages (volatile)

Anti-patterns

  • Treating the editor as a gatekeeper rather than a co-developer of an invited review
  • Drifting from the invited proposal's scope without telling the editor
  • Accepting every "please also cover…" until the review loses its framework and finish-ability
  • Mischaracterizing a reviewed author's work when that author may be your referee
  • Hiding a conflict of interest instead of disclosing it
  • Assuming an invited review gets a light revise; budgeting for cosmetic edits when substantial rework is normal

Output format

【Scope vs. proposal】full review reconciled with invited four headings? Y/N
【Framework-first】editor exchanges argued from framework/agenda strength? Y/N
【Referee anticipation】framework / attitude / coverage / balance / appraisal / scope — prepared each? Y/N
【Coverage asks】evaluated against the framework; accept/push-back plan? Y/N
【COI】reviewed-author referees flagged to editor? Y/N
【Cadence】revision depth + twice-yearly timing calibrated from official pages? Y/N
【Next skill】→ amann-submission (preflight) → amann-revision (after the letter)

Similar Skills

pdf
anthropics/skills180k

pdf

Use this skill whenever the user wants to do anything with PDF files. This includes reading or extracting text/tables from PDFs, combining or merging multiple PDFs into one, splitting PDFs apart, rotating pages, adding watermarks, creating new PDFs, filling PDF forms, encrypting/decrypting PDFs, extracting images, and OCR on scanned PDFs to make them searchable. If the user mentions a .pdf file or asks to produce one, use this skill.

Docs & office

discernment-nudge
anthropics/skills180k

discernment-nudge

After you give a substantive answer or draft that the user may act on — advice or recommendations, drafted artifacts such as goals, plans, pitches, proposals, or emails, estimates or projections, analysis or interpretation of data, factual claims they may rely on, or a multi-step argument — invoke this skill BEFORE finalizing your reply and then, if it applies, append 2-3 short follow-up questions, each tied to something specific in what you just produced, that help the user check key facts, probe the reasoning or assumptions, and notice missing context. Do this at most once per conversation. Skip it when the user asked a trivial how-to or simple lookup, wants a purely educational explanation, asked you only to format, convert, or assemble a file from content they provided, is writing code they will run, is doing creative writing or casual chat, or already asked you to double-check, cite, or review — the skill file explains these boundaries and the exact output format.

Docs & office

doc-coauthoring
anthropics/skills180k

doc-coauthoring

Guide users through a structured workflow for co-authoring documentation. Use when user wants to write documentation, proposals, technical specs, decision docs, or similar structured content. This workflow helps users efficiently transfer context, refine content through iteration, and verify the doc works for readers. Trigger when user mentions writing docs, creating proposals, drafting specs, or similar documentation tasks.

Docs & office

docx
anthropics/skills180k

docx

Use this skill whenever the user wants to create, read, edit, or manipulate Word documents (.docx files) or Word templates (.dotx files). Triggers include: any mention of 'Word doc', 'word document', '.docx', '.dotx', or requests to produce professional documents with formatting like tables of contents, headings, page numbers, or letterheads. Also use when extracting or reorganizing content from .docx or .dotx files, inserting or replacing images in documents, performing find-and-replace in Word files, working with tracked changes or comments, or converting content into a polished Word document. If the user asks for a 'report', 'memo', 'letter', 'template', or similar deliverable as a Word or .docx file, use this skill. Do NOT use for PDFs, spreadsheets, Google Docs, or general coding tasks unrelated to document generation.

Docs & office

pptx
anthropics/skills180k

pptx

Use this skill any time a .pptx or .potx file is involved in any way — as input, output, or both. This includes: creating slide decks, pitch decks, or presentations; reading, parsing, or extracting text from any .pptx or .potx file (even if the extracted content will be used elsewhere, like in an email or summary); editing, modifying, or updating existing presentations; combining or splitting slide files; working with templates (.potx), layouts, speaker notes, or comments. Trigger whenever the user mentions "deck," "slides," "presentation," or references a .pptx or .potx filename, regardless of what they plan to do with the content afterward. If a .pptx or .potx file needs to be opened, created, or touched, use this skill.

Docs & office

canvas-design
anthropics/skills180k

canvas-design

Create beautiful visual art in .png and .pdf documents using design philosophy. You should use this skill when the user asks to create a poster, piece of art, design, or other static piece. Create original visual designs, never copying existing artists' work to avoid copyright violations.

Docs & office