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.
| 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 |
arecon-topic-selection — confirm the field is ARE-scale (mature, important, needs synthesis)arecon-proposal-framing — get the topic to the Editorial Committee / shape the accepted invitationarecon-literature-synthesis — gather and read the literature systematicallyarecon-organizing-framework — impose the analytical spinearecon-evidence-standards — appraise primary-study credibility; balance competing viewsarecon-tables-figures — summary tables and the conceptual figurearecon-writing-style — the authoritative-yet-accessible ARE voice (abstract + intro last)arecon-editor-strategy — scope and the Committee/production relationshiparecon-submission — Annual Reviews delivery preflightarecon-review-process — what the Committee review cycle looks likearecon-revision — after the editor/referee letter
arecon-writing-styleis 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, soarecon-proposal-framingprecedes the heavy reading.
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 |
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