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

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

Anti-patterns

• Submitting a single-subfield paper to a four-field flagship with no broad framing
• Ignoring an obvious related literature or a non-metropolitan scholarship
• Treating reviewers' ethics-of-care tone as a sign the bar is low
• Pitching a Vital Topics Forum when proposals are closed; mis-targeting the section
• Leaving consent/heritage/anonymization unresolved and hoping review will overlook it

Output format

【Screening check】fit / four-field significance / ethics — any red flags?
【Significance】broad enough to clear "subfield-only"? [Y/N]
【Literature engaged】incl. cross-subfield + non-metropolitan? [Y/N]
【Ethics cleared】consent / anonymization / heritage resolved? [Y/N]
【Section】Research Article / Vital Topics / World / Public / Multimodal / Review Essay (right path?)
【Realistic outcome】reject / R&R / (rare) accept
【Next】amanthro-submission (or amanthro-rebuttal if decided)

What reviewers are asked to weigh (anticipate it)

Calibration anchors (hedged)

• The ethics of care shapes the tone of review (constructive, non-destructive), not the bar:

expect rigorous, sometimes cross-subfield critique even in a generous letter.

• A revise-and-resubmit is the normal positive outcome; treat it as an invitation, not a near-miss

(see amanthro-rebuttal). Outright first-round acceptance is rare.

• Decision-category names, reviewer counts, and acceptance rates are not published as fixed figures in

the checked public guidance; use the live Research Exchange/editorial letter wording.

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — peer-review model, ethics-of-care statement, section types, editorial board