From misq-skills
Explains MIS Quarterly's double-anonymous editorial process, decision letter meanings, and how to interpret SE vs. reviewer signals. Use when submitting or receiving a decision.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/misq-skills:misq-review-processThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- You want to set expectations before or just after submitting to MISQ
MISQ uses double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review: authors and reviewers do not know each other's identities. Author and reviewer identities are known to the Editor-in-Chief, the Senior Editor, the Associate Editor, and editorial staff, but never to reviewers. The manuscript itself must contain no identifying information.
The routing is two-tier and distinctive:
This SE-owns-the-decision structure (with the EIC overseeing) differs from INFORMS-style departmental area-editor desks; whether MISQ runs a formal area-editor desk structure is 待核实. The current Editor-in-Chief is Susan A. (Sue) Brown (University of Arizona; term began Jan 1, 2024, exact end date 待核实) — verify the masthead before relying on it.
| Decision | What it usually means | Your posture |
|---|---|---|
| Major revision | The SE sees a path; substantial work expected | A genuine opportunity — take every point seriously |
| Minor revision | Close; specific fixes remain | Address precisely; do not reopen settled issues |
| Reject (with reasons) | Not viable here as framed | Mine the reasons; consider a different framing/venue |
| Reject and resubmit (if offered) | Core idea has promise; current execution does not | Treat as a near-new paper |
Expect one or more rounds of revision — first-round acceptance is essentially unheard of. The SE's letter, not any single reviewer, is the authoritative guide to what must change.
When reviewers conflict, the SE letter signals priorities. Identify which concerns the SE elevated (often theory contribution, identification/evaluation rigor, or transparency) versus reviewer points the SE did not endorse. Plan the revision around the SE's hierarchy.
【Decision class】major / minor / reject / reject-and-resubmit
【SE priorities】ranked list from the letter
【SE-endorsed vs reviewer-only points】...
【Rigor standard in play】behavioral / economics / design science / qualitative
【Next step】misq-rebuttal
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin misq-skillsExplains the JMS editorial and peer-review process: desk screening, double-blind review, reading decision letters. Does not draft rebuttals.
Calibrates expectations for the JMIS editorial process, including EIC-led email intake, double-anonymized review, decision types, and timing. Does not draft the response letter.
Explains the Management Science (INFORMS) review pipeline: desk screening, double-anonymous refereeing, cross-department fit standards, turnaround targets, and how to interpret decision letters.