arecon-proposal-framing

Invitation & Commissioning (arecon-proposal-framing)

When to trigger

• The topic passed arecon-topic-selection and you want it considered for an ARE volume
• You received an invitation from the Editorial Committee and need to lock the angle before reading
• You are unsure how ARE intake works — it is not a portal you submit a finished paper to
• You want to maximize the chance the Committee commissions you for this topic

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

This is the single most important difference from a normal journal — get it right or you waste months. ARE is commissioning-driven:

• The Editorial Committee invites articles. The Committee identifies salient topics and solicits reviews from qualified authors, selecting on scholarly reputation, academic record, and publication history (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
• Unsolicited finished manuscripts are not accepted. You do not write the full review and submit it cold the way you would to JEL or a field journal (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). The leverage point is getting your topic and your name onto the Committee's radar, not polishing a finished draft no one asked for.
• Suggesting a topic is the controllable move. Authors and Committee members can propose topics; a member may propose another member or an outside expert. Proposed topics are evaluated with the same rigor as any commissioned article and go through review after submission (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). So your realistic path is a sharp, short pitch — to the Committee, an editor you know, or via the journal's suggestion channel — that demonstrates the topic is ARE-shaped and that you are the right author.
• After an invitation, scope is negotiated with the editor/Committee before you draft (see arecon-editor-strategy).

> Because you cannot manufacture an invitation, the closest controllable substitute is a one-to-two-page topic pitch that reads like the Committee's own reasoning: here is a field that has matured, here is why an adjacent economist needs a map of it now, here is the spine I would impose, and here is why I can write it fairly. Put your name in front of the Committee as the person who could write that review.

Anatomy of a Committee-ready topic pitch

| Element | What it must do | Length guide |

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

| The field & animating question | State the literature and the question about it (from arecon-topic-selection) | ~1 paragraph |

| Why a synthesis is needed now | New evidence / method shift / policy salience; the adjacent-economist payoff | ~1 paragraph |

| The organizing spine | The taxonomy or analytical structure you would impose — not a chapter list | ~2–3 paragraphs |

| Coverage signal | The main research lines and key references you would weigh (breadth evidence) | a curated list |

| Provisional conclusions | Your read of what the field has settled and the open questions (the payoff) | ~1 paragraph |

| Your standing & balance | Why you can review this fairly, and how you will handle your own work even-handedly | ~2 sentences |

Checklist

• [ ] You understand ARE is invited — you are pitching a topic, not submitting a finished paper
• [ ] The pitch states the contents, why adjacent economists will care, and the main references you would weigh
• [ ] It leads with an organizing spine, not a table of contents
• [ ] It demonstrates command of the literature (the reference signal shows breadth)
• [ ] It names the provisional conclusions and open questions (so the Committee sees a payoff)
• [ ] It addresses balance, especially if you are a contributor to the field
• [ ] You have identified the right channel (suggestion form / known editor / Committee contact) and confirmed it on the official page (volatile)
• [ ] If already invited: scope/angle confirmed with the editor before heavy reading (arecon-editor-strategy)

Anti-patterns

• Writing a 40-page draft and trying to submit it cold — ARE does not take unsolicited manuscripts
• A pitch that is a topic outline ("Section 3 will discuss X") with no analytical spine
• A reference list that is a literature dump rather than evidence of a curated, weighable corpus
• Promising "comprehensive coverage" with no statement of what the review will conclude
• Asserting editor names / Committee contacts / process from memory instead of the live Annual Reviews page
• Treating an invitation as a blank check — scope is still negotiated, and a review cannot grow without bound

Output format

【Field & question】<one sentence>
【Why now】<new evidence / method shift / policy salience>
【Proposed spine】<the organizing framework in 2–3 sentences>
【Coverage signal】<research lines + key references signalling breadth>
【Provisional conclusions + open questions】<what the review will argue>
【Route】topic suggestion / known-editor contact / accepted invitation
【Balance note】<how the author's own work is handled>
【Source status】Committee process / contact re-confirmed on Annual Reviews page? Y/N · 待核实
【Next step】→ arecon-literature-synthesis (begin systematic reading) after the invitation