jmgmt-review-process

Understanding the Review Process (jmgmt-review-process)

When to trigger

• Before submitting, to calibrate expectations about timeline and decision types
• A decision letter arrived and you need to interpret it (R&R vs. reject; major vs. minor)
• You are unsure how reviewers vs. the action editor weigh in under masked review
• You are routing a review/meta-analysis and want to know how the Review Issue track works
• You want to plan a revision strategy before drafting the response (then go to jmgmt-rebuttal)

Editorial structure, named editors, and timelines change. Verify the current team and turnaround on the SAGE JOM page; the norms below are durable. As of 2026-06: JOM uses masked (double-blind) review with an anonymized data transparency table, is developmental and multi-round, and the Editor-in-Chief is Cynthia E. Devers (Virginia Tech) (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).

How JOM review works (durable norms)

1. Submission & routing. The Editor-in-Chief or a deputy/associate editor screens the masked manuscript and routes it to an action editor in the relevant domain (OB, HR, strategy, entrepreneurship, methods). Submission is via SAGE/ScholarOne, fully anonymized.
2. Desk decision. Off-fit, atheoretical, or fatally under-designed papers — and reviews/meta-analyses with no organizing framework or no theoretical advance — may be desk-rejected without external review. A clear theoretical contribution and an appropriate design are what get a paper past the desk.
3. External peer review. Typically multiple (often two to three) masked reviewers from the focal conversation evaluate the theoretical contribution, design rigor, and analysis. Because JOM covers research methods, expect a methodologically exacting reading (CMB, endogeneity, measurement, multilevel modeling, meta-analytic corrections).
4. Action editor synthesis. The action editor weighs the reviews, forms an independent judgment, and writes the decision letter. The editor's letter — not a vote count — drives the outcome.
5. Decision. Common outcomes: reject; reject with encouragement to resubmit as new; major revision (R&R); minor revision; (rarely) accept. A first-round acceptance is essentially unheard of.

The Review Issue track

JOM runs biannual Review Issues (January and July) of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. These follow the same masked, developmental review, but referees judge the organizing framework, search/coding rigor, and the forward research agenda rather than new primary data. Invited reviews still go through peer review. If you are aiming for a Review Issue, calibrate to that bar, not the empirical-paper bar.

JOM is developmental and multi-round

JOM's culture is developmental: an R&R is an invitation to improve the paper over (often) multiple rounds. Reviewers push hard on the theoretical contribution and the method — expect requests to deepen theory, add a study or a wave, strengthen identification, address common-method/endogeneity concerns, or add artifact corrections to a meta-analysis. Treat an R&R as a serious opportunity, not a near-acceptance and not a rejection.

Reading the decision letter

• Find the action editor's priorities first. The letter signals which reviewer points are essential vs. optional; address the editor's framing above all.
• Distinguish fatal from fixable. If a core identification or theory concern is fatal and unaddressable, an honest reframe (or a different paper) beats a doomed revision.
• Gauge encouragement. "We see promise" + major revision signals a real path; language about poor developmental fit signals reject.
• Map every reviewer point to theory / method / analysis / framing / writing — this becomes the revision plan that feeds jmgmt-rebuttal.

Worked example (illustrative)

An entrepreneurship paper returns as a major revision. The action editor's letter foregrounds two asks: deepen the theory beyond a single "effectuation" label, and address an endogenous-founder-experience concern. Reviewer 1 also wants a new control; Reviewer 2 questions a scale's discriminant validity. Reading it correctly: the editor's two asks are essential (theory depth + endogeneity), the scale concern is real but bounded (a fuller CFA/HTMT will satisfy it), and the new control is optional polish. The revision plan therefore front-loads a sharper mechanism and an identification strategy, treats the CFA as a quick win, and adds the control with a one-line justification — rather than spreading effort evenly across all four comments. That prioritization is exactly what a developmental editor rewards.

Calibrating expectations before you submit

• Assume multiple rounds: a strong paper still typically sees a major and then a minor R&R before acceptance.
• Expect a methods-heavy read; pre-empt the standard pushbacks (CMB, endogeneity, measurement, levels) in the manuscript so the first round is about theory, not hygiene.
• For the Review track, budget time for the framework and agenda to be challenged; reviewers treat an integrative contribution as seriously as a new dataset.

How much weight reviewers vs. the action editor carry

Under JOM's masked, developmental model the action editor is decisive. Reviewers advise; the editor integrates, forms an independent view, and may overrule a harsh review or temper an enthusiastic one. Practically: if two reviewers are positive but the editor's letter is cautious, believe the editor; if a reviewer is hostile but the editor signals a path, the path is real. Read the editor's letter twice before reading the reviews, and let it set the priority order for the revision.

Checklist

• Decision type identified (R&R major/minor, reject-resubmit, reject)
• The action editor's priorities extracted and ranked above individual reviewer asks
• Every reviewer comment categorized (theory / method / analysis / framing / writing)
• Fatal vs. fixable concerns separated honestly
• Feasibility of demanded new theory/data/analyses assessed against the deadline
• Reviewer conflicts noted for the editor's attention

Anti-patterns

• Treating an R&R as a near-acceptance and making only cosmetic changes
• Treating an R&R as a rejection and walking away from a viable path
• Counting reviewer votes instead of reading the action editor's letter
• Ignoring the editor's stated priorities while over-investing in a minor reviewer point
• Submitting a review/meta-analysis to the Review track without the framework-and-agenda the editors expect

Output format

【Decision type】R&R(major/minor) / reject-resubmit / reject
【Track】empirical / Review Issue
【Editor's priorities】1... 2... 3...
【Comment map】theory:[...] method:[...] analysis:[...] framing:[...] writing:[...]
【Fatal vs. fixable】...
【New work needed】theory / data / analysis — feasible? ...
【Reviewer conflicts】...
【Next step】jmgmt-rebuttal