Rof Review Process

Review of Finance Review Process

Use this to plan around RoF's editorial model.

Process model

• RoF uses double-blind anonymous review under the current OUP instructions; manuscripts must contain no author-identifying references (also scrub PDF metadata).
• Screen Reports from trusted referees and Associate Editors can inform desk-rejection decisions before full review.
• Referees are asked to apply top-three-finance-journal standards and to separate their comments into (1) major concerns required for publication and (2) suggestions. Read reports through this lens: bucket (1) is what you must satisfy.
• RoF states a two-round decision philosophy: it aims to decide by the second round and will likely ignore new round-two concerns not raised in round one and unrelated to your changes, so round one is decisive.
• Published papers identify the accepting editor and the submission and acceptance dates; the policy frames authors (not referees) as the owners of the paper.
• Fast-Track submissions pay a premium (EUR 900 first submission) for a 14-day decision target.
• Undisclosed resubmission of a rejected RoF paper, or simultaneous submission elsewhere, triggers desk rejection and a two-year submission ban. Authors are also responsible for searching and citing relevant work — lack of awareness is not a defense.

Desk-screen patterns at this journal

Timing expectations (hedged)

• Regular track: no published decision guarantee; the refund trigger for decisions past 120 days signals the journal's own benchmark for a slow round — plan in months, and confirm the current schedule against the journal's current author guidelines.
• Fast-Track: a 14-day decision target after valid payment, built for finished papers facing competition; confirm the current decision set and refund mechanics before paying.
• Screen Reports can close the file within weeks, with partial fee refund on the regular track — evidence the desk filter is genuinely used, not ornamental.

Reading the decision letter

• Count bucket-1 items per referee, then read the editor's letter for which of them are binding — when referees conflict, the editor's framing wins.
• A reject-and-resubmit at a two-round journal functions like a hard R&R: the clock and the fee restart, and the resubmission must disclose the history (nondisclosure is the banned offense, not the resubmission itself).
• Treat round one as the only round in which new evidence reliably counts; build the response (see rof-rebuttal) so nothing decisive is deferred.
• Because published RoF papers name the accepting editor and the submission/acceptance dates, the process is unusually auditable — sample recent issues to calibrate realistic durations in your subfield.

Editorial board (as of the 1 January 2026 update — re-verify)

Managing Editor Marcin Kacperczyk (Imperial College London), with Editors including Ian Dew-Becker, Hui Chen, Laurent Fresard, Marcus Opp, Jun Pan, Jacopo Ponticelli, David Solomon, and Margarita Tsoutsoura, plus ~29 Associate Editors. Hui Chen and Margarita Tsoutsoura became Editors on 1 January 2026, succeeding Xavier Giroud (stepped down end of 2025); Jun Pan's term ends June 2026. Exact AE count is 待核实 — confirm on revfin.org/editorial-board/.

Output format

[Stage] pre-screen / review / R&R / resubmission / accepted
[Decision standard] <top-three concern>
[Round-one must-fix] <issue>
[Process risk] <dual submission, disclosure, fee, anonymity, or code>
[Next move] <specific action>