jmr-review-process

Understanding the JMR Review Process (jmr-review-process)

When to trigger

• Before submitting, to set realistic expectations for timing and decisions
• After a decision letter, to interpret what the editor and reviewers are signaling
• You are unsure how JMR routes papers or how many reviews are required
• You want to understand the difference between a desk reject and a post-review reject

How JMR routing works

JMR uses an EIC + Coeditor model. A single Editor-in-Chief oversees a panel of Coeditors (currently four; the incoming 2026–2029 team has five) who handle manuscripts by methodological/substantive domain, alongside Associate Editors and an Editorial Review Board. This is analogous to INFORMS-style departmental routing, but organized around methodological/substantive domains rather than fixed departments. Practical implication: your domain keywords and article type at submission influence which Coeditor/AE your paper reaches, so choose them to land with an expert in your area. (The by-domain routing chart itself is not published — 待核实 — so this is inferred from the masthead structure.)

Transition note: Rebecca Hamilton (Georgetown) is EIC of record through 30 June 2026; Raphael Thomadsen's incoming team (WashU) has handled new submissions since 1 April 2026. Authors submitting now are effectively reviewed by the incoming team.

The stages

1. Initial editorial evaluation — the editor screens for scope, fit, and conformance. Out-of-scope or non-conforming papers can be desk-rejected without peer review (e.g., wrong venue, exceeds 50 pages, missing exact-statistics/transparency requirements).
2. Double-anonymized peer review — identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from both parties.
3. Decision — to reach a Revise or Accept decision, the manuscript requires two independent reviews. The editor has final authority and integrates the reviews with their own read.

Read the decision letter by genre

• Rigor-bar objections — "identification is not convincing," "the manipulation is confounded," "report effect sizes / exact p-values," "the instrument is weak." These are often addressable with new analyses, studies, or Web Appendix material.
• Substance-bar objections — "the contribution is incremental," "what do we learn?" These are harder; they may require reframing (jmr-contribution-framing) or additional studies, not just robustness.
• Both bars — JMR's dual standard means a paper can be methodologically clean yet rejected for thin contribution, or interesting yet rejected for weak identification. Diagnose which bar the letter is really about.

Set expectations

• First-round accepts are essentially unheard of; a Revise (R&R) is a strong outcome.
• Expect multiple rounds; reviewers are domain experts who will probe identification, process evidence, and exact-statistics reporting.
• A desk reject is usually about fit or conformance, not a verdict on quality — re-target or fix conformance.

Anti-patterns

• Treating a desk reject as a content verdict (it is usually scope/fit/format).
• Reading only the reviews and ignoring the editor's framing of which concerns are pivotal.
• Assuming one enthusiastic review is enough — two independent reviews gate Revise/Accept.

Output format

[Target] JMR
[Decision] desk-reject / reject / R&R / minor
[Routing] likely Coeditor/AE domain
[Pivotal bar] rigor / substance / both
[Editor's framing] key asks ...
[Tractability] addressable via analysis/studies vs. reframe
[Next skill] jmr-rebuttal (if R&R)

Resources

• ../../resources/official-source-map.md
• ../../resources/external_tools.md