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:
Focus of the review — the literature and the animating problem.
Related reviews — what reviews already exist and why yours is not redundant.
Review scope and process — boundaries, inclusion logic, how you will gather and synthesize the corpus.
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
