ajs-review-process

Review Process (ajs-review-process)

AJS's review process is unusual and worth understanding before submitting. It is double-blind, run out of the University of Chicago Department of Sociology, with graduate students doing reviewer assignment and a "preject" screen for papers not in dialogue with current sociology. Knowing this lets you pre-empt the failure modes. Verify volatile specifics on the live editorial pages before submission.

When to trigger

• Before submitting, to stress-test the manuscript against the AJS process
• Interpreting a decision letter and setting expectations
• Understanding why "in dialogue with current sociology" and theoretical ambition both matter

How AJS review works (distinctive features)

1. Double-blind. Identities are hidden from both authors and referees; prepare an anonymized manuscript with a separate cover page (see ajs-submission). AJS will not knowingly use reviewers in the author's network (current colleagues, coauthors, PhD cohort, etc.).
2. Three levels of editorship. The editorial board is the entire faculty of the UChicago Department of Sociology; there is an editor, and a student tier (Associate Editors) supervising Assistant Editors.
3. Student-run assignment. On first submission, a Manuscript Assignment Board (Assistant Editors under graduate-student Associate Editors) reads a blinded manuscript to infer substantive area and method, then finds reviewers who can speak to it — not restricted to cited authors. This design deliberately reduces editor-driven reviewer bias.
4. The "preject." AJS declines without review papers that are not in dialogue with current sociology — opinion pieces, current-events interpretations, or work that is not original sociological research. Editorial associates or the Assignment Board make prejects, consulting the editor when unsure.
5. Decisions. Reject, revise and resubmit, or (rarely on first round) accept. R&R is the normal path for promising papers; expect substantial revision.

What reviewers weigh

Reviewer asks	You answer with
Is this in dialogue with current sociology?	positioning in ajs-literature-positioning
Is there a portable theoretical payoff?	argument in ajs-theory-building
Is the method rigorous for its kind?	design defense in ajs-research-design
Do the data warrant the claim?	the evidence chain in ajs-data-analysis

Shape the paper to pass

• Make the theoretical contribution and its dialogue with the field obvious early (clears the preject).
• Write so a cross-method, generalist reviewer can follow and find the contribution.
• Present negative cases / robustness candidly — reviewers trust candor.

Desk-reject / preject pattern catalogue (AJS-specific)

The preject screen is AJS's signature gate; these profiles get declined without review, and the fix is upstream. Confirm current screening practice against the journal's current submission guidelines.

Preject profile	Pre-empt before submitting
Opinion / current-events interpretation	reframe as a researched argument or do not submit
Atheoretical finding	climb the theory ladder in ajs-theory-building
Subfield-only conversation	reposition for the discipline in ajs-literature-positioning
Broken anonymity	re-anonymize via ajs-submission before upload
Missing abstract	add a ~150-word abstract stating question/data/findings

Calibration: how to read an AJS letter (hedged)

Orienting expectations, not guarantees; confirm timelines and categories against the journal's current submission guidelines.

• An R&R is success, not a near-miss. For a promising paper it is the normal route; the letter typically asks for theoretical deepening, not just more robustness, and the editor adjudicates reviewer disagreement.
• Craftsmanship is judged. Referees read for whether the construction holds under pressure — a thin theory section sinks an empirically clean paper.
• Generalist, cross-method reviewers. The Assignment Board recruits readers beyond your citation list, so an argument legible only to your subfield is a liability the process exposes.

Illustrative: a deeply theorized urban-ethnography study of immigrant incorporation is read blind and sent to three referees outside the author's network (an illustrative ethnographer, quantitativist, and generalist). The quantitativist asks for the mechanism's observable implications; the generalist flags an abstract that never states the puzzle. The realistic outcome is an R&R — not a reject, not a first-round accept.

Anti-patterns

• An opinion or current-events piece submitted as research (prejected)
• A subfield-only or atheoretical paper at a theory-forward generalist journal
• Leaving identifying self-references that break double-blind anonymity
• Expecting acceptance without a serious R&R round, or reading an R&R as rejection and abandoning a promising project

Output format

【Clears the preject】in dialogue with current sociology + original research? [Y/N]
【Theoretical payoff】portable contribution present? [Y/N]
【Method rigor】defensible for its kind? [Y/N]
【Evidence→claim】warranted and candid? [Y/N]
【Anonymity】double-blind-ready? [Y/N]
【Realistic outcome】preject / reject / R&R / (rare) accept
【Next】ajs-submission (or ajs-rebuttal if decided)

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — process and portal summary
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — AJS double-blind, preject, and Manuscript Assignment Board policy