The orchestrator for an American Anthropologist submission. Figure out the stage, the subfield, and the section type, then send the user to the matching skill. AA is the four-field AAA flagship — the router's first job is to make sure the work reads as anthropology that speaks across subfields, with reflexivity and an ethics of care built in from the start, not bolted on.
amanthro-rebuttal)| Situation | Section | Route to |
|---|---|---|
| Full original study, broad anthropological significance | Research Article (≤ 8,000 words) | normal pipeline below |
| Multi-voice debate on a pressing issue | Vital Topics Forum | amanthro-topic-selection + amanthro-writing-style |
| Anthropology produced outside the US/Anglophone center | World Anthropologies | amanthro-topic-selection + amanthro-literature-positioning |
| Engaged / activist / publicly-facing work | Public Anthropologies | amanthro-topic-selection + amanthro-transparency-and-data |
| Image / sound / film / installation as argument | Multimodal Anthropologies | amanthro-tables-figures + amanthro-writing-style |
| Assessing 2–5 recent books | Review Essay (≤ 5,000 words) | amanthro-literature-positioning |
AA spans four fields: sociocultural, archaeology, biological/physical, linguistic, plus reflexive/public anthropology. The methods and the transparency/ethics demands differ by subfield — name yours before routing (see
amanthro-research-design).
Idea / fit / section? → amanthro-topic-selection
Where does it sit in the field? → amanthro-literature-positioning
What's the conceptual argument? → amanthro-theory-building
Is the fieldwork/design sound? → amanthro-research-design
Is the analysis/inference sound? → amanthro-data-analysis
Are ethnographic exhibits clear? → amanthro-tables-figures
Does it read across the fields? → amanthro-writing-style
Ethics, consent, accountability? → amanthro-transparency-and-data
How will it be judged? → amanthro-review-process
Ready to submit? → amanthro-submission
Got an R&R / decision? → amanthro-rebuttal
topic-selection → literature-positioning → theory-building → research-design → data-analysis → tables-figures → writing-style → transparency-and-data → review-process → submission → rebuttal
Iterate: most ethnographic papers loop theory ↔ fieldwork ↔ interpretation many times, and the
ethics-and-accountability check (amanthro-transparency-and-data) should run early and again
before submission — consent and community accountability are designed in, not added at the end.
Before selecting the next skill, force a one-minute AA fit check:
| Check | Pass condition | Route if weak |
|---|---|---|
| Reach | A reader in another subfield (e.g., an archaeologist reading a linguistic paper) can state why it matters to anthropology. | amanthro-topic-selection |
| Mode honesty | The method (ethnographic, archival, material, lab, computational) is defended in its own idiom, not forced into a quantitative template. | amanthro-research-design |
| Reflexivity | Positionality and the author's relationship to the field/community are made explicit. | amanthro-theory-building |
| Ethics of care | Consent, anonymization, community accountability, and heritage/repatriation obligations have an explicit plan. | amanthro-transparency-and-data |
If the paper fails the reach check, do not route to writing-style — it needs a fit or theory repair, because AA reviewers reject technically clean subfield papers that never become anthropological claims.
【Stage】idea / positioning / theory / design / analysis / exhibits / writing / ethics / review / submit / rebut
【Subfield】sociocultural / archaeology / biological / linguistic / reflexive-public
【Section】Research Article / Vital Topics Forum / World / Public / Multimodal / Review Essay
【Route to】amanthro-<skill>
【Why】one line
【Then】the next skill after that
../../resources/external_tools.md — anthropology data sources, archives, CAQDAS, lab/quant tooling by subfield../../resources/official-source-map.md — official AA / AAA / Wiley URLs behind every fact in this pack