Understanding the JMR Review Process (jmr-review-process)
When to trigger
- Before submitting, to set realistic expectations for timing and decisions
- After a decision letter, to interpret what the editor and reviewers are signaling
- You are unsure how JMR routes papers or how many reviews are required
- You want to understand the difference between a desk reject and a post-review reject
How JMR routing works
JMR uses an EIC + Coeditor model. A single Editor-in-Chief oversees a panel of Coeditors (currently four; the incoming 2026–2029 team has five) who handle manuscripts by methodological/substantive domain, alongside Associate Editors and an Editorial Review Board. This is analogous to INFORMS-style departmental routing, but organized around methodological/substantive domains rather than fixed departments. Practical implication: your domain keywords and article type at submission influence which Coeditor/AE your paper reaches, so choose them to land with an expert in your area. JMR does not publish a by-domain routing chart, so treat this routing guidance as a masthead-based inference rather than an official AMA rule.
Transition note: Rebecca Hamilton (Georgetown) is EIC of record through 30 June 2026; Raphael Thomadsen's incoming team (WashU) has handled new submissions since 1 April 2026. Authors submitting now are effectively reviewed by the incoming team.
The stages
- Initial editorial evaluation — the editor screens for scope, fit, and conformance. Out-of-scope or non-conforming papers can be desk-rejected without peer review (e.g., wrong venue, exceeds 50 pages, missing exact-statistics/transparency requirements).
- Double-anonymized peer review — identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from both parties.
- Decision — to reach a Revise or Accept decision, the manuscript requires two independent reviews. The editor has final authority and integrates the reviews with their own read.
Read the decision letter by genre
- Rigor-bar objections — "identification is not convincing," "the manipulation is confounded," "report effect sizes / exact p-values," "the instrument is weak." These are often addressable with new analyses, studies, or Web Appendix material.
- Substance-bar objections — "the contribution is incremental," "what do we learn?" These are harder; they may require reframing (
jmr-contribution-framing) or additional studies, not just robustness.
- Both bars — JMR's dual standard means a paper can be methodologically clean yet rejected for thin contribution, or interesting yet rejected for weak identification. Diagnose which bar the letter is really about.
Set expectations
- First-round accepts are essentially unheard of; a Revise (R&R) is a strong outcome.
- Expect multiple rounds; reviewers are domain experts who will probe identification, process evidence, and exact-statistics reporting.
- A desk reject is usually about fit or conformance, not a verdict on quality — re-target or fix conformance.
First 48 hours with the letter
- Read the editor's letter twice before opening any review; the editor tells you which concerns
are pivotal and which are optional — reviewers advise, they do not vote.
- Build a one-line-per-comment inventory tagged rigor / substance / exposition before deciding
anything. An R&R that looks brutal often reduces to two pivotal asks plus exposition cleanup.
- Note where reviewers conflict; conflicts are resolved by the editor's framing, and flagging a
genuine conflict explicitly in the eventual response is legitimate, not evasive.
- Resist drafting responses now — that is
jmr-rebuttal's job, and it starts only after the
revision plan (new analyses, new studies, reframing) actually exists.
Anti-patterns
- Treating a desk reject as a content verdict (it is usually scope/fit/format).
- Reading only the reviews and ignoring the editor's framing of which concerns are pivotal.
- Assuming one enthusiastic review is enough — two independent reviews gate Revise/Accept.
Output format
[Target] JMR
[Decision] desk-reject / reject / R&R / minor
[Routing] likely Coeditor/AE domain
[Pivotal bar] rigor / substance / both
[Editor's framing] key asks ...
[Tractability] addressable via analysis/studies vs. reframe
[Next skill] jmr-rebuttal (if R&R)
Resources
1---2name: jmr-review-process3description: Use when understanding how the Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) review process works — initial editorial evaluation and possible desk rejection, double-anonymized review, the EIC-plus-Coeditor domain-routing model, the requirement of two independent reviews to reach a Revise/Accept decision, and how to read a JMR decision letter. Sets expectations; jmr-rebuttal drafts the response.4---56# Understanding the JMR Review Process (jmr-review-process)78## When to trigger910- Before submitting, to set realistic expectations for timing and decisions11- After a decision letter, to interpret what the editor and reviewers are signaling12- You are unsure how JMR routes papers or how many reviews are required13- You want to understand the difference between a desk reject and a post-review reject1415## How JMR routing works1617JMR uses an **EIC + Coeditor** model. A single **Editor-in-Chief** oversees a panel of **Coeditors** (currently four; the incoming 2026–2029 team has five) who handle manuscripts by **methodological/substantive domain**, alongside **Associate Editors** and an **Editorial Review Board**. This is analogous to INFORMS-style departmental routing, but organized around methodological/substantive domains rather than fixed departments. Practical implication: your domain keywords and article type at submission influence which Coeditor/AE your paper reaches, so choose them to land with an expert in your area. JMR does **not** publish a by-domain routing chart, so treat this routing guidance as a masthead-based inference rather than an official AMA rule.1819> Transition note: Rebecca Hamilton (Georgetown) is EIC of record through 30 June 2026; Raphael Thomadsen's incoming team (WashU) has handled **new** submissions since 1 April 2026. Authors submitting now are effectively reviewed by the incoming team.2021## The stages22231. **Initial editorial evaluation** — the editor screens for scope, fit, and conformance. Out-of-scope or non-conforming papers can be **desk-rejected without peer review** (e.g., wrong venue, exceeds 50 pages, missing exact-statistics/transparency requirements).242. **Double-anonymized peer review** — identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from both parties.253. **Decision** — to reach a **Revise or Accept** decision, the manuscript requires **two independent reviews**. The editor has final authority and integrates the reviews with their own read.2627## Read the decision letter by genre2829- **Rigor-bar objections** — "identification is not convincing," "the manipulation is confounded," "report effect sizes / exact p-values," "the instrument is weak." These are often addressable with new analyses, studies, or Web Appendix material.30- **Substance-bar objections** — "the contribution is incremental," "what do we learn?" These are harder; they may require reframing (`jmr-contribution-framing`) or additional studies, not just robustness.31- **Both bars** — JMR's dual standard means a paper can be methodologically clean yet rejected for thin contribution, or interesting yet rejected for weak identification. Diagnose which bar the letter is really about.3233## Set expectations3435- First-round **accepts are essentially unheard of**; a Revise (R&R) is a strong outcome.36- Expect multiple rounds; reviewers are domain experts who will probe identification, process evidence, and exact-statistics reporting.37- A desk reject is usually about fit or conformance, not a verdict on quality — re-target or fix conformance.3839## First 48 hours with the letter4041- Read the **editor's** letter twice before opening any review; the editor tells you which concerns42 are pivotal and which are optional — reviewers advise, they do not vote.43- Build a one-line-per-comment inventory tagged *rigor* / *substance* / *exposition* before deciding44 anything. An R&R that looks brutal often reduces to two pivotal asks plus exposition cleanup.45- Note where reviewers conflict; conflicts are resolved by the editor's framing, and flagging a46 genuine conflict explicitly in the eventual response is legitimate, not evasive.47- Resist drafting responses now — that is `jmr-rebuttal`'s job, and it starts only after the48 revision plan (new analyses, new studies, reframing) actually exists.4950## Anti-patterns5152- Treating a desk reject as a content verdict (it is usually scope/fit/format).53- Reading only the reviews and ignoring the **editor's** framing of which concerns are pivotal.54- Assuming one enthusiastic review is enough — two independent reviews gate Revise/Accept.5556## Output format5758```text59[Target] JMR60[Decision] desk-reject / reject / R&R / minor61[Routing] likely Coeditor/AE domain62[Pivotal bar] rigor / substance / both63[Editor's framing] key asks ...64[Tractability] addressable via analysis/studies vs. reframe65[Next skill] jmr-rebuttal (if R&R)66```6768## Resources6970- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md)71- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md)
brycewang-stanford