orgstud-review-process

Review Process (orgstud-review-process)

When to trigger

• You want to calibrate desk-reject odds and timeline before or after submitting
• A decision letter arrived and you need to read what the editor is actually signalling
• You are unsure whether an R&R is "major-but-encouraging" or "high-risk reject-with-resubmission"
• You are deciding whether to revise for OS or reposition to a sibling journal

How OS review works (and how it differs)

OS runs a double-anonymized, developmental review handled by a co-editor with (typically) 2–3 reviewers drawn from the relevant conversation. The European, theory-first culture shapes what reviewers do: they engage your theoretical contribution and your use of social theory as the primary axis — not just method execution. Reviewers here often co-develop the theory across rounds, which is why OS R&Rs can be intellectually demanding and multi-round, but also why a serious R&R is a genuine signal of interest. Expect reviewers who know the canonical works in your conversation intimately.

Desk-screen is real and theory-driven. The most common desk-rejects are not method failures but "interesting phenomenon, no theoretical contribution," wrong-fit ("belongs at a sibling journal"), or superficial engagement with the literature it claims to advance. A clean dataset will not save a paper with a thin theoretical move.

Reading the decision

Outcome	What it usually means	Your move
Desk reject	Fit/contribution problem caught pre-review	Re-diagnose with orgstud-topic-selection / orgstud-contribution-framing; consider sibling fit
Reject (post-review)	Reviewers see a fatal theoretical or evidentiary gap	Read for whether the core idea survives; usually reposition, don't resubmit
Reject & resubmit / high-risk R&R	Promising but currently not a contribution	Treat as a near-rewrite of the theory; only proceed if you can make the move land
Major revision	The contribution is real; theory/evidence need substantial development	The expected good outcome; plan a multi-issue revision (orgstud-rebuttal)
Minor revision	Rare on first round; contribution accepted, polishing needed	Address precisely; do not reopen settled points

Reading the reviewers and editor

• The editor's letter is the binding instruction. When reviewers conflict, the co-editor usually signals which threads are essential — prioritize those.
• Theory comments outrank cosmetic ones. A reviewer asking you to "engage [conversation] more deeply" or "clarify the mechanism" is naming the contribution bar; treat it as central, not as a citation chore.
• Distinguish "develop this" from "drop this." OS reviewers frequently push you to develop an underdeveloped idea — that is an invitation, not a rejection of it.
• Reflexivity / positionality requests are substantive at OS, not box-ticking.

Deciding to revise vs. reposition

• Revise for OS if the contribution is real and the reviewers' essential asks are achievable without breaking the paper.
• Reposition if the core asks would turn it into a different paper, or if the fit critique (too descriptive, wrong conversation, sibling-shaped) is fundamental — orgstud-workflow can route the repositioning.

Checklist

• You have separated essential asks (editor-flagged, theory-level) from optional ones
• You can state, in one line, whether the contribution survives the reviews
• Theory/mechanism/literature comments are treated as central, not cosmetic
• The outcome type is correctly read (R&R encouragement vs. high-risk resubmission)
• Revise-vs-reposition decision is made deliberately, not by default
• Timeline expectations are realistic (multi-round developmental review)

Anti-patterns

• Reading a "reject & resubmit" as a minor revision (or vice versa)
• Treating deep-engagement/theory requests as optional polish
• Cherry-picking easy reviewer points while dodging the editor's essential threads
• Resubmitting a desk-rejected paper to a sibling without fixing the contribution problem
• Ignoring reflexivity/positionality requests as if they were pro forma

Worked vignette: reading an ambiguous letter (illustrative)

A letter reads: "The phenomenon is fascinating and the fieldwork is impressive, but the contribution to institutional theory remains underdeveloped; we invite a resubmission if the authors can sharpen the theoretical move." Two authors read this oppositely — one as encouragement, one as a polite reject. The correct read at OS: this is a high-risk reject-and-resubmit, not a routine major revision. The praise is for the empirics; the binding problem is the theoretical contribution, which means the revision is closer to a partial rewrite than a polish. Proceed only if you can genuinely make the institutional-theory move land (route to orgstud-theory-development and orgstud-contribution-framing); otherwise reposition. Treating it as a minor revision and resubmitting with cosmetic edits is the fast path to a final reject.

Output format

【Outcome】desk reject / reject / reject-resubmit / major / minor
【Contribution survives?】yes / needs rebuild / no
【Editor's essential threads】the must-address asks
【Theory-level asks】mechanism / literature / reflexivity items flagged central
【Decision】revise for OS / reposition (which sibling)
【Next skill】orgstud-rebuttal (if revising)