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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
| Reviewer focus |
What it means at AA |
How to pre-empt it |
| Four-field significance |
Does this matter beyond the home subfield? |
State the cross-field stake in the introduction |
| Evidence & rigor |
Is the claim grounded; is interpretation disciplined? |
Ground each claim; name and adjudicate the rival reading |
| Reflexivity |
Is the author's position visible and accounted for? |
Make positionality part of the argument |
| Ethics & care |
Consent, anonymization, heritage, no harm |
Resolve and state these before submitting |
| Citational practice |
Are marginalized/regional voices engaged? |
Cite beyond the metropolitan canon |
| Craft |
Is it well written and legible across fields? |
Polish with amanthro-writing-style |
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
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → American-Anthropologist-Skills/skills/amanthro-review-process/SKILL.md
1---2name: amanthro-review-process3description: Use when you need to understand how American Anthropologist (AA) evaluates a manuscript — editorial screening, anonymous peer review under an ethics of care, the four-field editorial board, decision categories, and how section choice shapes the path. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.4---567# Review Process (amanthro-review-process)89Knowing how AA screens and decides lets you pre-empt the failure modes before submitting. AA is the10four-field AAA flagship, uses **anonymous peer review**, and explicitly practices an **ethics of care**11toward authors and reviewers — but the editorial bar is still four-field significance plus sound,12ethical evidence.1314## When to trigger1516- Before submitting, to stress-test against editorial screening grounds17- Choosing the right **section** (the review path differs for forums, multimodal, review essays)18- Interpreting a decision letter and setting expectations19- Understanding what reviewers are asked to weigh, including ethics2021## How AA review works22231. **Editorial screening first.** The editor-in-chief and associate editors (a **four-field board**)24 assess fit, four-field significance, and obvious ethics issues before sending out for review. A25 technically fine but subfield-bound paper can be returned or redirected here.262. **Anonymous peer review.** Reviewers typically do not see author identities; anonymize the manuscript27 and file name and provide a separate title page (see `amanthro-submission`). Expect expert,28 sometimes cross-subfield, reviewers.293. **Ethics of care.** AA states it strives for an ethics of care in editing and asks reviewers to do30 the same — constructive, non-destructive review. This does not lower the bar; it shapes the tone.314. **Decision categories.** Reject; major or minor revisions (revise-and-resubmit); accept. R&R is the32 common positive outcome; exact portal labels and acceptance-rate figures are not fixed in this pack.335. **Section-specific paths.** Vital Topics Forums and special sections are often **invited or proposed**34 (and AA may not always be accepting proposals); Multimodal and Public Anthropologies have their own35 editors and expectations; Review Essays are commissioned or pitched.3637## Shape the paper to pass3839- Make **four-field significance** explicit early (avoids the "subfield-only" redirect).40- Engage the relevant conversations, including across subfields and beyond the metropolitan canon.41- Clear **ethics** up front: consent, anonymization, heritage/repatriation, community accountability —42 an unresolved ethics concern is a serious problem at AA (see `amanthro-transparency-and-data`).43- Match the **section** to the work; don't send a 1,500-word engaged piece through the Research-Article44 path or a full study to a forum.4546## Anti-patterns4748- Submitting a single-subfield paper to a four-field flagship with no broad framing49- Ignoring an obvious related literature or a non-metropolitan scholarship50- Treating reviewers' ethics-of-care tone as a sign the bar is low51- Pitching a Vital Topics Forum when proposals are closed; mis-targeting the section52- Leaving consent/heritage/anonymization unresolved and hoping review will overlook it5354## Output format5556```57【Screening check】fit / four-field significance / ethics — any red flags?58【Significance】broad enough to clear "subfield-only"? [Y/N]59【Literature engaged】incl. cross-subfield + non-metropolitan? [Y/N]60【Ethics cleared】consent / anonymization / heritage resolved? [Y/N]61【Section】Research Article / Vital Topics / World / Public / Multimodal / Review Essay (right path?)62【Realistic outcome】reject / R&R / (rare) accept63【Next】amanthro-submission (or amanthro-rebuttal if decided)64```6566## What reviewers are asked to weigh (anticipate it)6768| Reviewer focus | What it means at AA | How to pre-empt it |69|----------------|--------------------|--------------------|70| Four-field significance | Does this matter beyond the home subfield? | State the cross-field stake in the introduction |71| Evidence & rigor | Is the claim grounded; is interpretation disciplined? | Ground each claim; name and adjudicate the rival reading |72| Reflexivity | Is the author's position visible and accounted for? | Make positionality part of the argument |73| Ethics & care | Consent, anonymization, heritage, no harm | Resolve and state these before submitting |74| Citational practice | Are marginalized/regional voices engaged? | Cite beyond the metropolitan canon |75| Craft | Is it well written and legible across fields? | Polish with `amanthro-writing-style` |7677## Calibration anchors (hedged)7879- The **ethics of care** shapes the *tone* of review (constructive, non-destructive), not the *bar*:80 expect rigorous, sometimes cross-subfield critique even in a generous letter.81- A **revise-and-resubmit is the normal positive outcome**; treat it as an invitation, not a near-miss82 (see `amanthro-rebuttal`). Outright first-round acceptance is rare.83- Decision-category names, reviewer counts, and acceptance rates are not published as fixed figures in84 the checked public guidance; use the live Research Exchange/editorial letter wording.8586## Supplementary resources8788- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — peer-review model, ethics-of-care statement, section types, editorial board8990---9192**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `American-Anthropologist-Skills/skills/amanthro-review-process/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain