Aaag review process
Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. ｜ 覆盖主流期刊的 Claude Code/Codex 期刊技能包，从选题、识别策略到表格规范与审稿回复全流程，助你快速发论文。
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill aaag-review-processAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Use when you need to understand how the Annals of the American Association of Geographers evaluates a manuscript — double-anonymous review routed through a subject editor by area, 1-3 referees (one being the editor or designate), decision categories, and what desk-rejects a paper. Sets expectations; it does not write the paper or the response letter.
SKILL.md
5.3 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Review Process (aaag-review-process)
Knowing how the Annals judges a paper lets you pre-empt the objections that sink it. Submissions are routed to a subject editor by area, reviewed double-anonymously, and held to the broad four-area flagship's bar. Confirm volatile specifics on the official pages (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
When to trigger
- Before submission, to stress-test against likely reviewer and editor objections
- Choosing the area so the right subject editor and reviewers handle the paper
- Interpreting a decision letter before drafting a response (
aaag-rebuttal)
How the Annals reviews (verify current wording)
- Editorial structure. A subject editor leads each area — Geographic Methods; Human Geography; Nature and Society; Physical Geography, Earth & Environmental Sciences — plus a General Geography / cross-disciplinary editor and a Cartography Editor. Editors serve four-year terms (current editors are volatile — 检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
- Review model. Double-anonymous peer review for Articles, Special Issues, Forums, and Commentaries, by one to three referees, one of whom is the editor or a designate. Commentary Responses undergo single-anonymous review.
- Decision categories. Accept / minor revision / major revision (revise-and-resubmit) / reject — exact labels vary; treat a major revision as a genuine, scoped invitation.
What gets a paper desk-rejected or rejected early
| Trigger | Why it fails | Pre-empt with |
|---|---|---|
| Not really geography | space/place/scale is decorative | aaag-topic-selection (delete-test) |
| Wrong area / wrong venue | specialty-venue increment to the flagship | aaag-topic-selection, aaag-literature-positioning |
| Over the word cap / format off | exceeds 11,000 inclusive; non-Chicago | aaag-writing-style, aaag-submission |
| Spatial method not defended | autocorrelation/MAUP/validation ignored | aaag-research-design, aaag-data-analysis |
| Atheoretical | descriptive mapping, no concept | aaag-theory-building |
| Cartography below standard | artifactual maps, no projection/legend | aaag-tables-figures |
Area-aware reviewer expectations
- Methods reviewers probe inference, generality beyond one dataset, and spatial assumptions.
- Human reviewers probe theoretical engagement, positionality, and interpretive rigor.
- Nature-Society reviewers check that both sides are theorized and integrated.
- Physical / RS reviewers check measurement validity, validation samples, and uncertainty.
Reading a decision letter
| Decision | What it means | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| Accept (rare on first pass) | publishable | final-submission guidelines; production |
| Minor revision | small, scoped changes | address fully and quickly (aaag-rebuttal) |
| Major revision (R&R) | promising, but real gaps | treat as a genuine invitation; rebuild where asked |
| Reject (with encouragement) | not now, but resubmittable | if invited, address substance before any resubmission |
| Desk reject | scope/fit/format failure | re-evaluate venue and the geography fit |
Editors weigh strong, geographically-grounded support across referees plus their own judgment; a single enthusiastic review rarely carries a paper, and a fixable methods gap need not sink one.
Self-screen before you submit (pre-empt the desk)
- Could a generalist geographer state the contribution and the area in one sentence?
- Is every map and spatial method defensible to an area specialist and a methods reviewer?
- Are anonymity and the inclusive word cap genuinely satisfied?
Checklist
- Area declared so the right subject editor receives it
- Manuscript double-anonymized (text, self-refs, file metadata)
- Likely area-specific objections pre-empted in the design and exhibits
- Word cap and Chicago style satisfied before submission
- Maps meet cartographic standard; spatial methods defended
Anti-patterns
- Letting the system pick the area for you (lands with the wrong editor/reviewers)
- Submitting work whose geography is decorative and hoping reviewers overlook it
- Treating a major revision as a rejection rather than a scoped path to acceptance
- Ignoring the Cartography Editor's standard for maps
Output format
【Area / editor】Methods / Human / Nature-Society / Physical / General
【Review model】double-anonymous, 1-3 referees (one editor/designate)
【Top 3 likely objections】by area, each with its pre-emption
【Desk-reject risk】geography decorative? cap/format? [Y/N]
【Next】aaag-submission (pre-submit) or aaag-rebuttal (post-decision)
Supplementary resources
../../resources/official-source-map.md— editorial structure, review model, decision categories../../resources/README.md— shared reviewer-objection-checklist background