amann-proposal-framing

Proposal Framing — the Gate (amann-proposal-framing)

When to trigger

• The literature passed amann-topic-selection and you are ready to approach Annals
• You need to know exactly what the proposal must contain and how long it can be
• You are about to write a full review — stop: at Annals the proposal is mandatory and comes first
• An April 1 / October 1 deadline is approaching and the proposal is the deliverable

How Annals intake actually works (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)

Annals uses a two-step, proposal-first process. You do not submit a full review cold; you submit a short proposal, and only an accepted proposal is invited to develop into a full article.

• Proposal length. No longer than 5 pages, single-spaced, 1-inch margins, 12-point font; references and visual elements do not count toward the limit.
• Four required sections, with these exact headings:

1. Focus of the review — the literature and the animating problem.
2. Related reviews — what reviews already exist and why yours is not redundant.
3. Review scope and process — boundaries, inclusion logic, how you will gather and synthesize the corpus.
4. New insights — the integrative contribution, the "attitude," and the agenda the review will produce.

• Deadlines. Proposals are accepted on a twice-yearly cycle — April 1 and October 1. Submissions are not reviewed until the deadline passes; decision letters arrive ~6 weeks after the deadline.
• Who reviews the proposal. Proposals are double-blind peer-reviewed by the Associate Editors. (The invited full review later forgoes double-blind and is read only by the AE and Editor — see amann-review-process.)
• Portal. Submit via Manuscript Central: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aomannals. A current CV may be requested for the editors' eyes only — confirm at submission time (待核实).

> The ≤5-page proposal is the single most consequential document in the Annals lifecycle: it is the gate. A strong proposal earns an invitation before you sink months into reading and drafting; a weak one ends the project regardless of how good the eventual review would have been. Treat it as a high-stakes argument, not an outline.

What each heading must accomplish

| Heading | What it must do | Common failure |

|---------|-----------------|----------------|

| Focus of the review | Name the literature and the problem with the field (from amann-topic-selection), not just the topic | A topic label ("a review of X") with no problem |

| Related reviews | Show command of prior reviews and stake the delta — what yours does that none did | Claiming "no review exists" instead of differentiating from the ones that do |

| Review scope and process | State boundaries, inclusion/exclusion logic, databases, and the synthesis method (narrative / systematic / bibliometric) | Vague "we will read the literature" with no transparent process |

| New insights | Lead with the integrative framework and the agenda — the new way of seeing the field, with attitude | A promise of "comprehensive coverage" and no new organizing idea |

The center of gravity is New insights: Associate Editors are deciding whether this review will reorganize the field, not whether it will summarize it. A proposal that nails coverage but offers no framework is the most common proposal-stage reject.

Checklist

• [ ] Proposal is ≤5 pages, single-spaced, 1-inch margins, 12pt (refs/visuals excluded)
• [ ] Uses the four required headings verbatim: Focus / Related reviews / Review scope and process / New insights
• [ ] "Focus" states a problem with the field, not a topic label
• [ ] "Related reviews" differentiates from existing reviews (delta), not "none exists"
• [ ] "Review scope and process" names boundaries, inclusion logic, databases, and synthesis method
• [ ] "New insights" leads with the integrative framework + agenda + the critical "attitude"
• [ ] Targeted at the correct April 1 / October 1 window
• [ ] Balance addressed if you are a contributor to the literature
• [ ] Portal, CV requirement, and any current specifics re-confirmed (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准 / 待核实)

Anti-patterns

• Writing the full ~50-page review and trying to submit it — Annals invites full reviews only after proposal acceptance
• A proposal that is a chapter outline with no integrative idea under "New insights"
• "Related reviews" that asserts novelty by ignoring the reviews that already exist (reviewers will name them)
• A "Review scope and process" section with no inclusion logic or named databases (looks unsystematic)
• Promising comprehensive coverage as if coverage alone were the contribution
• Missing the deadline and assuming rolling intake

Output format

【Focus of the review】<literature + animating problem, one sentence>
【Related reviews】<existing reviews + the delta yours provides>
【Review scope and process】<boundaries / inclusion logic / databases / synthesis method>
【New insights】<integrative framework + agenda + the critical attitude>
【Length check】≤5pp single-spaced, 1-in margins, 12pt (refs/visuals excluded)? Y/N
【Deadline】targeting April 1 / October 1? <which>
【Balance note】<how author's own work is handled, if a contributor>
【Open verifications】portal / CV / specifics re-confirmed on official page? Y/N
【Next skill】→ amann-literature-synthesis (begin systematic reading) after invitation