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)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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
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
1---2name: jmgmt-review-process3description: Use when you need to understand or set expectations for the Journal of Management (JOM) editorial and masked-review process — desk screening, the developmental R&R culture, the Review Issue track, and reading a decision letter. Explains the process; it does not draft the response letter (jmgmt-rebuttal).4---56# Understanding the Review Process (jmgmt-review-process)78## When to trigger910- Before submitting, to calibrate expectations about timeline and decision types11- A decision letter arrived and you need to interpret it (R&R vs. reject; major vs. minor)12- You are unsure how reviewers vs. the action editor weigh in under masked review13- You are routing a review/meta-analysis and want to know how the Review Issue track works14- You want to plan a revision strategy before drafting the response (then go to `jmgmt-rebuttal`)1516> 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).1718## How JOM review works (durable norms)19201. **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.212. **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.223. **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).234. **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.**245. **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.2526## The Review Issue track2728JOM 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.2930## JOM is developmental and multi-round3132JOM'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.3334## Reading the decision letter3536- **Find the action editor's priorities first.** The letter signals which reviewer points are essential vs. optional; address the editor's framing above all.37- **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.38- **Gauge encouragement.** "We see promise" + major revision signals a real path; language about poor developmental fit signals reject.39- **Map every reviewer point** to theory / method / analysis / framing / writing — this becomes the revision plan that feeds `jmgmt-rebuttal`.4041## Worked example (illustrative)4243An 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.4445## Calibrating expectations before you submit4647- Assume **multiple rounds**: a strong paper still typically sees a major and then a minor R&R before acceptance.48- 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.49- 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.5051## How much weight reviewers vs. the action editor carry5253Under 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.5455## Checklist5657- [ ] Decision type identified (R&R major/minor, reject-resubmit, reject)58- [ ] The action editor's priorities extracted and ranked above individual reviewer asks59- [ ] Every reviewer comment categorized (theory / method / analysis / framing / writing)60- [ ] Fatal vs. fixable concerns separated honestly61- [ ] Feasibility of demanded new theory/data/analyses assessed against the deadline62- [ ] Reviewer conflicts noted for the editor's attention6364## Anti-patterns6566- Treating an R&R as a near-acceptance and making only cosmetic changes67- Treating an R&R as a rejection and walking away from a viable path68- Counting reviewer votes instead of reading the action editor's letter69- Ignoring the editor's stated priorities while over-investing in a minor reviewer point70- Submitting a review/meta-analysis to the Review track without the framework-and-agenda the editors expect7172## Output format7374```75【Decision type】R&R(major/minor) / reject-resubmit / reject76【Track】empirical / Review Issue77【Editor's priorities】1... 2... 3...78【Comment map】theory:[...] method:[...] analysis:[...] framing:[...] writing:[...]79【Fatal vs. fixable】...80【New work needed】theory / data / analysis — feasible? ...81【Reviewer conflicts】...82【Next step】jmgmt-rebuttal83```
brycewang-stanford