| name | aaag-writing-style |
| description | Use when drafting or polishing the prose of an Annals of the American Association of Geographers manuscript — Chicago Manual of Style (author-date), the 11,000-word inclusive cap, the 3-5 italicized keywords, and writing that reads as geography for a broad disciplinary audience. Polishes prose and format; it does not generate findings. |
Writing Style (aaag-writing-style)
The Annals reaches the whole discipline of geography across four areas. The prose must make a
specialist contribution legible to geographers outside the subfield, follow Chicago Manual of Style
(author-date), and fit a cap that counts almost everything (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
When to trigger
- Drafting the introduction, framing the contribution, or final language polish
- Cutting to the word cap, or fixing citation/keyword/format issues
- A reviewer said the paper is "hard to follow," "jargon-heavy," or "reads as [another discipline]"
House style (verify on the Style Sheet)
- Chicago Manual of Style, author-date citations and reference list.
- Abstract followed by 3-5 keywords, alphabetized and italicized at the end of the abstract.
- Word cap: ≤ 11,000 words for Articles, including abstract, references, notes, tables, and figure
captions — budget the whole document, not just the body. Forums and Commentaries differ (see
aaag-submission).
- US/standard academic English; define area-specific jargon for a general-geography reader.
The introduction arc (make it read as geography)
Aim for: question → geographic stake (space/place/scale/environment-society) → why it is hard →
setting & design → headline finding with mechanism → portable contribution → brief roadmap. By the
end of the introduction a geographer in another area should know the question, the argument, the
evidence, and why it matters to geography broadly.
- Lead with the geographic question and argument, not the method or the study area description.
- State the contribution early and as a portable geographic claim (
aaag-theory-building).
- Name the place/scale as part of the argument, not as throat-clearing description.
Cross-area legibility
- Translate sub-field jargon: a Physical-Geography reader should follow a Human-Geography paper's stakes and vice versa.
- Keep methods proportionate — enough to judge rigor, not a tutorial that crowds out the argument.
- Use signposting sparingly; let the argument, not a seven-section roadmap, carry the reader.
Trimming to the inclusive cap
- Count abstract, notes, tables, and captions; cut the longest table and the most redundant figure first.
- Move secondary detail to supplementary material rather than padding the body.
- Replace literature dumps with positioned claims (
aaag-literature-positioning).
Calibration anchors
- A geographer in another area is your reader. If a physical geographer cannot follow a human-
geography paper's stakes (or vice versa), the framing is too inside-baseball.
- The cap counts almost everything. Abstract, notes, tables, and figure captions are inside the
11,000 words — a "10,000-word body" can still be over.
- Place is argument, not scenery. Naming the study area is not the same as showing why this place,
scale, or region is constitutive of the claim.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Leading with the study-area description or the estimator instead of the question and argument
- Treating the cap as body-only and overrunning once captions/notes/refs are counted
- Mixed or non-Chicago citation style; missing or non-italicized keywords
- Sub-field jargon left undefined so other-area geographers cannot follow
- Over-signposted roadmap doing the work the argument should do
Output format
【Citation style】Chicago author-date consistent? [Y/N]
【Abstract + keywords】3-5 italicized, alphabetized? [Y/N]
【Word count】total incl. notes/tables/captions/refs vs. cap
【Intro arc】question → stake → finding → portable contribution early? [Y/N]
【Cross-area legibility】jargon defined; reads as geography? [Y/N]
【Next】aaag-transparency-and-data
Supplementary resources
