brycewang-stanford Review Process (misq-review-process)
When to trigger
- You want to set expectations before or just after submitting to MISQ
- A decision letter arrived and you need to read it correctly before reacting
- You are unsure who owns the decision and how the editors and reviewers relate
- You need to gauge whether a decision is encouraging or terminal
How MISQ review is structured
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:
- A Senior Editor (SE) and an Associate Editor (AE) conduct the initial review;
- if it advances, the paper goes to external reviewers;
- the Senior Editor owns the decision, informed by the AE's and reviewers' input.
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.
Read the decision letter for what it actually says
| 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.
Calibrate to the SE letter, not the loudest reviewer
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.
What reviewers and the SE will push on
- Contribution to IS theory within your tradition (or a defensible cross-tradition blend).
- Methodological rigor appropriate to the genre — identification (economics), validity/CMB (behavioral), evaluation against baselines (design science), trustworthiness (qualitative).
- Research transparency — whether your genre-appropriate materials and procedures/code support replication.
- Fit and length — does the contribution justify the category and stay within the page limit.
Checklist
- You can name the SE's top priorities from the letter
- You distinguish SE-endorsed points from individual-reviewer points
- You correctly classify the decision (major/minor/reject/reject-and-resubmit)
- You know which tradition-specific rigor standard you are being held to
- Expectations set for multiple revision rounds
Anti-patterns
- Treating every reviewer comment as equally binding regardless of the SE letter.
- Reading a major revision as a near-acceptance (it is real work).
- Reacting to a reject before extracting its reusable lessons.
Output format
【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