amann-organizing-framework

1# Organizing Framework — the Acceptance Bar (amann-organizing-framework)
2 
3## When to trigger
4 
5- The coding matrix is built but the draft would read like a list of papers
6- Sections are named after sub-topics ("Antecedents", "Outcomes") rather than ideas
7- You cannot state in one sentence the *new way of seeing the field* the review delivers
8- A reader could not predict why streams are grouped as they are, or what the review *argues*
9 
10## Why the framework is the whole game at Annals
11 
12Annals is "reviews with an attitude": it does not reward accurate summary, it rewards **theory advancement through synthesis**. The acceptance bar is whether the review **imposes an organizing logic the field did not have** — a typology, a process model, an integrating construct, a reconciliation of rival camps — that makes scattered work legible and generates a research agenda. The framework *is* the contribution; the citations are the evidence. This is what separates Annals from a descriptive review and from its sibling AMR, where new theory stands alone rather than emerging from a literature. Choose the spine deliberately:
13 
14| Spine type | Organizes the field by | Best when |
15|-----------|------------------------|-----------|
16| **Typology / taxonomy** | mutually-exclusive categories of mechanism, form, or approach | the field is fragmented into incommensurable camps |
17…