Topic Selection & Area Fit (aaag-topic-selection)

The Annals is the AAG's broad four-area flagship. A topic earns a place by being geographic — space, place, scale, region, or spatial process is constitutive of the question — and by speaking to one of the journal's areas with enough reach that geographers outside that subfield see why it matters.

When to trigger

• Choosing a project, or deciding if a draft fits the Annals vs. a specialty venue
• A reviewer or colleague said "this isn't really geography" or "this is too narrow"
• Unsure whether to declare Geographic Methods, Human, Nature-Society, Physical, or General Geography

The two-part fit test

1. Geographic-ness. Could you delete every spatial/place/scale element and keep the argument? If

yes, it is not yet a geography paper — the geography must do theoretical work, not just locate data.

1. Area reach. Within the declared area, would a geographer in a neighboring subfield see the

stake? An over-narrow result that only its sub-sub-field cares about is an Annals off-fit.

Declare the area (it routes the paper and sets the bar)

Calibrating ambition (Annals vs. specialty venue)

• Specialty venue (e.g., IJGIS, Geomorphology, Environment and Planning D) when the audience

is the sub-field and the advance is incremental within it.

• The Annals when the contribution is legible to the area broadly and connects to geographic theory

or to a cross-cutting concern (scale, place, environment-society, spatial method).

• The cross-disciplinary/General track when the contribution genuinely spans areas.

Sibling-journal guard (do not mis-pitch)

• Progress in Human Geography — review/agenda essays, not original empirical studies.
• Geographical Analysis — formal spatial-analytic methods; the Annals Methods area is broader and more applied.
• Transactions of the IBG / The Professional Geographer — overlapping scope; the Annals is the AAG's broad flagship with the four-area structure.

Worked micro-example (illustrative)

A draft asks "what predicts urban tree-canopy loss in City X?" and maps the result by census tract.

Delete-test: remove the map and "tract" → "what predicts canopy loss?" survives → geography decorative
Repair: reframe around SCALE — does the predictor of loss change with the unit/scale of analysis, and
  what does that imply for where canopy is added? Now space is the argument, not the backdrop.
Area: Nature and Society (canopy = environment-society) or Methods (if the scale claim leads)
Reach: a methods reader gets a MAUP/scale lesson; a nature-society reader gets an equity mechanism

The repaired version makes the geography load-bearing and gives a neighboring subfield a reason to read.

Checklist

• [ ] The geography is load-bearing (delete-test passes)
• [ ] One area declared, with a one-line reason it belongs there
• [ ] A neighboring-subfield geographer can state the stake in a sentence
• [ ] Right venue confirmed (Annals vs. a specialty journal)
• [ ] Article type chosen (Article / Forum / Commentary) — see aaag-workflow

Anti-patterns

• "Spatial decoration" — coordinates or a study-area map standing in for a geographic argument
• Pitching a specialty-venue increment to the broad flagship
• Refusing to pick an area (the paper lands with the wrong editor and reviewers)
• A Nature-Society topic that theorizes only the social or only the biophysical side

Output format

【Area】Methods / Human / Nature-Society / Physical / General
【Geographic core】the space/place/scale/process the argument turns on
【Reach】why a neighboring-subfield geographer cares
【Venue check】Annals vs. specialty (one line)
【Type】Article / Forum / Commentary
【Next】aaag-literature-positioning

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/exemplars/library.md — real Annals papers by area × method to calibrate fit
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — areas, scope, and article types