| name | curranthro-workflow |
| description | Use when starting or navigating any Current Anthropology (CA) manuscript as the entry point. Routes to the right CA sub-skill based on lifecycle stage, subfield (sociocultural, archaeology, biological, linguistic), and article type (Major Article under the CA✩ Treatment, Report, Forum, Discussion/Comment). It dispatches; it does not draft content. |
CA Workflow Router (curranthro-workflow)
The orchestrator for a Current Anthropology submission. Figure out the stage, the subfield,
and the article type, then send the user to the matching skill. CA is the transnational, all-fields
journal published by the University of Chicago Press for the Wenner-Gren Foundation, and its defining
feature is the CA✩ Treatment: an accepted Major Article is circulated to invited commentators whose
signed Comments are published alongside it, followed by the author's Reply. The router's first
job is to make sure the work is built to survive and reward that public, multi-voice scrutiny.
When to trigger
- Starting a new CA paper and unsure where to begin
- Mid-project and unsure which skill applies next
- Deciding which article type fits (Major Article vs. Report vs. Forum vs. Discussion/Comment)
- Returning with a decision letter or with published Comments to reply to (route to
curranthro-rebuttal)
First questions: subfield and article type
| Situation | Article type | Route to |
|---|
| Field-shaping theoretical/methodological intervention, broad reach | Major Article (6,000–10,000 words) → gets the CA✩ Treatment | normal pipeline below |
| Sharp finding, provocation, or new framework, shorter | Report (3,000–5,000 words) | curranthro-topic-selection + curranthro-data-analysis |
| Curated multi-author debate on a pressing issue | Forum | curranthro-topic-selection + curranthro-writing-style |
| Critique/reply to a CA piece from the last ~8 months | Discussion / Comment (≤ 800 words) | curranthro-rebuttal + curranthro-writing-style |
| Bridging academic and applied work | Current Applications (open-access section) | curranthro-topic-selection |
CA spans all subfields: sociocultural, archaeology, biological/physical, linguistic (plus
ethnohistory, prehistory, applied). Method and ethics demands differ by subfield — name yours before
routing (see curranthro-research-design). Only Major Articles get the full CA✩ commentary.
Routing map (stage → skill)
Idea / fit / article type? → curranthro-topic-selection
Where does it sit in the field? → curranthro-literature-positioning
What's the conceptual argument? → curranthro-theory-building
Is the fieldwork/design sound? → curranthro-research-design
Is the analysis/inference sound? → curranthro-data-analysis
Are exhibits clear & ethical? → curranthro-tables-figures
Does it read across the fields? → curranthro-writing-style
Ethics, consent, accountability? → curranthro-transparency-and-data
How does CA✩ review work? → curranthro-review-process
Ready to submit? → curranthro-submission
Got Comments / an R&R? → curranthro-rebuttal
Default order
topic-selection → literature-positioning → theory-building → research-design → data-analysis → tables-figures → writing-style → transparency-and-data → review-process → submission → rebuttal
Iterate: ethnographic and theory-driven papers loop theory ↔ fieldwork ↔ interpretation many times, and
the ethics-and-accountability check (curranthro-transparency-and-data) should run early and again
before submission. The CA✩ logic also runs throughout — from topic-selection onward, ask "who are
my likely commentators, and what will they attack?"
CA✩ fit check (run before routing to the next skill)
| Check | Pass condition | Route if weak |
|---|
| Reach | A scholar in another subfield (e.g., a linguist reading an archaeology paper) can state why it matters to anthropology writ large. | curranthro-topic-selection |
| Commentary worthiness | The argument is bold and synthetic enough that international commentators would have something substantive to debate. | curranthro-theory-building |
| Mode honesty | The method (ethnographic, archival, material, lab) is defended in its own idiom, not forced into a quantitative template. | curranthro-research-design |
| Ethics of care | Consent, anonymization, heritage/repatriation obligations have an explicit plan. | curranthro-transparency-and-data |
If the paper fails the reach or commentary-worthiness check, do not route to writing-style — a CA Major
Article that no one would bother commenting on is not yet a CA Major Article.
Anti-patterns
- Treating CA like a one-subfield outlet — the Major Article should reach all of anthropology
- Forgetting the CA✩ Treatment exists: writing a paper that cannot withstand published, signed Comments
- Confusing CA with its siblings: it is not American Anthropologist (AAA flagship, no comment apparatus), American Ethnologist, or Cultural Anthropology — CA is Wenner-Gren-sponsored and defined by the comment-and-reply format
- Forcing ethnographic/interpretive work into a hypothesis-test template
- Deferring ethics, consent, and anonymization to the end (they are design decisions)
Output format
【Stage】idea / positioning / theory / design / analysis / exhibits / writing / ethics / review / submit / reply
【Subfield】sociocultural / archaeology / biological / linguistic / ethnohistory-applied
【Article type】Major Article (CA✩) / Report / Forum / Discussion-Comment / Current Applications
【Route to】curranthro-<skill>
【Why】one line
【Then】the next skill after that
Supplementary resources
