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):

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

1. Pick the deadline first. Decide which April 1 / October 1 window the proposal targets, and back-plan the proposal-writing from there.
2. 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.
3. On invitation, ramp the systematic search (amann-literature-synthesis) — full coverage to saturation is now required.
4. Treat the editor as a partner through the editor-only full-review stage (amann-editor-strategy); expect substantive revision rounds.
5. 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)
• [ ] Target deadline (April 1 / October 1) chosen and proposal back-planned
• [ ] Aware proposals are double-blind (Associate Editors); invited full review is editor-only (AE + Editor)
• [ ] ~6-week proposal decision and Jan/Jul publishing rhythm factored into the plan
• [ ] No full-review drafting before invitation (proposal is the gate)
• [ ] Substantive, multi-round full-review revision budgeted (not a light turnaround)
• [ ] All volatile dates/rules re-confirmed on the official AOM/Annals pages (检索于 2026-06)

Anti-patterns

• Treating Annals like a rolling-submission journal and submitting a full review cold
• Submitting the proposal early expecting a faster decision (review starts only after the deadline)
• Drafting the entire ~50-page review before the proposal is invited
• Expecting double-blind anonymity at the full-review stage (it forgoes double-blind)
• Underestimating revision depth and the six-month deadline gap if you miss a window
• Asserting current deadlines/timelines from memory rather than the live pages

Output format

【Stage】proposal (double-blind, AEs) / invited full review (editor-only, AE+Editor)
【Target deadline】April 1 / October 1 → <which>; proposal back-planned? Y/N
【Pre-invitation discipline】no full-review drafting before invitation? Y/N
【Timeline】~6-week proposal decision + Jan/Jul rhythm factored in? Y/N
【Revision budget】substantive multi-round development planned? Y/N
【Volatile re-confirms】deadlines / blinding / timelines checked on official pages? Y/N
【Next skill】→ amann-submission (preflight) or amann-revision (after a decision)