From mgsci-skills
Explains the Management Science (INFORMS) review pipeline: desk screening, double-anonymous refereeing, cross-department fit standards, turnaround targets, and how to interpret decision letters.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/mgsci-skills:mgsci-review-processThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- You want to know what happens to a submission and how long it takes
Beyond field rigor, papers are judged on whether they belong in Management Science versus a sister INFORMS journal. Ambiguous-fit papers spanning departments are discussed across the editorial team, and a large share are redirected. Expect "fit" to be a first-order screen, not an afterthought.
The journal states that it strives to provide high-quality feedback to 90% of authors within 90 days. If a paper is sent to reviewers, authors receive a Department Editor decision within 65 days on average. Acceptance does not end the workflow: accepted numerical/computational papers still need the Code and Data Disclosure materials required before production.
mgsci-topic-selection) or target the named sister journal; usually not worth appealing.mgsci-rebuttal.Read the Department Editor's letter first — it tells you which reviewer concerns are binding and which are advisory.
Because Management Science is the multidisciplinary INFORMS flagship, the desk screen is run by a Department Editor enforcing that department's rigor bar and the cross-department fit test.
| Desk-reject reason | What it signals | Implied next move |
|---|---|---|
| "Better suited to a sister INFORMS journal" | A routing verdict, not necessarily quality | Re-aim or target the named journal |
| "Contribution does not clear the bar" | Rigor present, decision insight thin | Reframe; do not just resubmit |
| "No clear home department" | Ambiguous-fit; arbitration redirected it | Name a department + the bridge |
Letter A: "Interesting model, but the algorithmic contribution would be better appreciated at Operations Research." This is a routing verdict — the work may be excellent, just mis-homed; do not appeal. Letter B: "The identification does not rule out selection, and the managerial implication is unclear." This is a substantive reject on two flagship bars (empirical leverage and a decision-relevant contribution); a major reframe plus a stronger design is needed. Distinguishing routing from substantive rejects decides whether you re-aim or rebuild.
Turnaround targets, department rosters, and disclosure requirements evolve — treat the values above as current official guidance and re-check the source map before submission or appeal advice.
【Stage】desk screen / under review / decision received
【Department & decider】Department Editor / AE / EiC
【Decision type】desk-reject(fit) / reject / R&R / minor
【Binding concerns】[from the DE letter]
【Next step】mgsci-rebuttal (R&R) or mgsci-topic-selection (re-aim)
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin mgsci-skillsExplains the JMS editorial and peer-review process: desk screening, double-blind review, reading decision letters. Does not draft rebuttals.
Explains M&SOM's review process: department routing, DE/AE/referee chain, double-anonymous review, special tracks (OM Forum, Practice Platform, Grand Challenges), and reading decision letters.
Explains Organization Science's decentralized senior-editor review model, conflict-of-interest routing, double-blind submission preparation, and how to interpret decision letters.