Arecon workflow

ARE Workflow Router (arecon-workflow)

Overview

This is the router. It tells you which arecon- skill to use at the current stage* of an invited review article aimed at the Annual Review of Economics (ARE) — the Annual Reviews (nonprofit) survey series for economics, founded 2009, published as an annual volume with a high impact factor (检索于 2026-06；11.4 in 2024, ~5th of 617 econ journals；以官网为准). ARE does not publish original empirical research. It publishes authoritative, accessible review articles that synthesize a field for specialists and adjacent economists. So the lifecycle is not "design → identify → estimate → defend"; it is scope a synthesis-worthy field → secure the invitation → read the whole literature → impose an organizing framework → appraise the evidence fairly → land the ARE voice → clear the Annual Reviews production process → revise.

Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as ARE and the artefact as an invited review, not a primary-research paper. Operational tells that you are at ARE and not a sibling: the work reviews other people's results rather than reporting its own; unsolicited manuscripts are not accepted — the Editorial Committee commissions topics and authors (you can suggest a topic, but you cannot self-submit a finished paper the way you would to a journal) (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准); there is no identification strategy and no replication package of your own data (you appraise the studies you cover); the contribution is an analytical map of a field, not a new estimate. If the user actually has original results, they want a primary-research journal (AER, QE, an AEJ), not ARE — say so.

When to trigger

• The user asks "what should I do next?" on an invited review
• A review draft reads like an annotated bibliography and needs a spine
• Work is ping-ponging between coverage, framing, balance, and the invitation pitch
• An ARE editor/referee letter arrived and the user needs to switch into revision mode

Routing table

Current symptom	Next skill
Unsure the field is mature/important enough to review for ARE	arecon-topic-selection
Need to get the topic in front of the Editorial Committee / accept an invitation	arecon-proposal-framing
Reading is unsystematic; citation gaps likely	arecon-literature-synthesis
Draft is a list of papers, not an argument about the field	arecon-organizing-framework
Conflicting findings; credibility of primary studies needs weighing	arecon-evidence-standards
Coverage, balance, or self-promotion concerns	arecon-evidence-standards (balance lens)
Need who-found-what tables or a conceptual framework figure	arecon-tables-figures
Prose is dense/jargon-laden; a non-specialist economist can't follow	arecon-writing-style
Working with the Annual Reviews production editor / Committee on scope	arecon-editor-strategy
Ready to deliver the commissioned draft; need a preflight	arecon-submission
Want to understand the Committee review cycle / timeline	arecon-review-process
Received editor/referee feedback on the review	arecon-revision

Default order

1. arecon-topic-selection — confirm the field is ARE-scale (mature, important, needs synthesis)
2. arecon-proposal-framing — get the topic to the Editorial Committee / shape the accepted invitation
3. arecon-literature-synthesis — gather and read the literature systematically
4. arecon-organizing-framework — impose the analytical spine
5. arecon-evidence-standards — appraise primary-study credibility; balance competing views
6. arecon-tables-figures — summary tables and the conceptual figure
7. arecon-writing-style — the authoritative-yet-accessible ARE voice (abstract + intro last)
8. arecon-editor-strategy — scope and the Committee/production relationship
9. arecon-submission — Annual Reviews delivery preflight
10. arecon-review-process — what the Committee review cycle looks like
11. arecon-revision — after the editor/referee letter

arecon-writing-style is a late-stage polish; do not rewrite the intro before the organizing framework and evidence appraisal settle. The invitation comes early — ARE is commissioning-first, so arecon-proposal-framing precedes the heavy reading.

Anti-patterns

• Treating ARE as a journal you submit to cold — it is invitation-driven; unsolicited manuscripts are not accepted (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)
• Treating the review as an annotated bibliography (no framework) — the cardinal review-article failure
• Using the author's own line of work as the review's center of gravity (self-promotion)
• Importing primary-research instincts: there is no "identification" or "replication package" of your own — you appraise others' designs
• Confusing ARE with JEL (the AEA's in-depth survey of record, proposal/full-paper intake) or JEP (shorter, non-technical, broad audience), or with a Handbook chapter

Routing by review archetype

A "review" is not one thing; the bottleneck differs by type. Read the archetype, then enter the chain at the right link.

Archetype	Likely first bottleneck	Enter at
field-defining synthesis (broad subfield)	scope is enormous; needs a taxonomy	arecon-organizing-framework
methods/tool review (an estimator or modeling family)	accessibility to non-specialists; worked intuition	arecon-writing-style
empirical-evidence stocktake (what is the consensus?)	weighing conflicting results by credibility	arecon-evidence-standards
emerging-area review (young, fast-moving)	is it mature enough for an ARE volume yet?	arecon-topic-selection

Minimal decision snippet

if editor_or_referee_letter:        -> arecon-revision
elif ready_to_deliver_draft:        -> arecon-submission
elif prose_dense_or_inaccessible:   -> arecon-writing-style
elif need_tables_or_figures:        -> arecon-tables-figures
elif evidence_credibility_or_balance: -> arecon-evidence-standards
elif reads_like_a_list:             -> arecon-organizing-framework
elif reading_unsystematic:          -> arecon-literature-synthesis
elif no_invitation_yet:             -> arecon-proposal-framing
else:                               -> arecon-topic-selection