# Car Review Process > Use when you need to understand how Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR) evaluates a manuscript — the double-anonymous, two-reviewer process, the role of the subject Editor and the EIC who approves all acceptances, generative-AI rules for reviewers, and CAR's formal appeals process. Explains the process; it does not draft the revision response (car-rebuttal). - Skill: `thedixitjain/car-review-process` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add thedixitjain/car-review-process` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/thedixitjain/car-review-process/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Research & Search - Author: thedixitjain (https://skillmd.com/u/thedixitjain) - Updated: 2026-09-08 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/thedixitjain/car-review-process --- # Review Process (car-review-process) ## When to trigger - Before submitting, to calibrate expectations for CAR's process and timeline - A decision letter arrived and you need to read its signals before responding - You are unsure who decides at CAR (reviewers vs. subject Editor vs. EIC) - You are weighing whether to appeal a rejection ## How CAR review works - **Double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review.** The manuscript file is blind (no author-identifying information), with a separate title page. *(The "double-anonymous" label is inferred from CAR's documented blind-manuscript and reviewer-anonymity requirements; 待核实 for the exact CAR phrasing.)* - **Two reviewers.** The Editor normally assigns **two reviewers**, who provide reports and recommendations. - **Who decides.** The assigned **subject Editor** (one of ~24 handling editors) makes the disposition decision; the **Editor-in-Chief (Anup Srivastava) reviews and approves all acceptance decisions.** Deputy EICs (Demers, Edwards, Stolowy) and Consulting Editors support the team. - **Reviewer conduct.** Reviewers must report conflicts of interest and are actively discouraged from trying to identify authors. From Jan 1, 2024, reviewers are **prohibited from using generative-AI tools** in the review process. ## Reading a CAR decision letter - **Reject / desk reject.** A desk reject on/after Apr 1, 2021 carries a **50% fee refund**. Treat substantive rejects as venue or framing feedback; do not resubmit the same paper without a major rethink. - **Revise and resubmit (R&R).** The expected path to acceptance at a top accounting journal. Map each reviewer's and the Editor's points; the subject Editor's letter signals which concerns are first-order. **Invited revisions pay no further submission fee.** - **Conditional acceptance / acceptance.** The EIC must approve; expect final-version requirements (code archiving, data availability statement, CAR Style Guide conformance, author X/Twitter handles for promotion). ## Decoding the subject Editor's letter At CAR the subject Editor's cover letter — not the raw reviewer reports — is the authoritative map of what a revision must do. Reviewers raise many points; the Editor tells you which are dispositive. Read the letter in this order: - **The framing paragraph.** If the Editor restates your contribution in their own words, that framing is the one you must satisfy; a revision that fights it usually fails. If they hedge the contribution ("the paper may be of interest to…"), treat it as a first-order concern, not a courtesy. - **Ordering and emphasis.** Points the Editor lists first, or explicitly endorses from a reviewer, outrank the reviewer's own ordering. A reviewer's minor typo list is not equal to the Editor's identification worry. - **Conflicting reviewers.** When R1 and R2 disagree (common in CAR's method-agnostic mix — e.g., an archival reviewer wanting more identification, an analytical reviewer wanting cleaner assumptions), the Editor's letter signals which side to privilege; do not average them. **Micro-example.** Editor writes: "R2's concern about the parallel-trends assumption is central; R1's request for additional institutional detail is secondary." → Your response memo leads with a new pre-trends test and event-study plot, and handles the institutional detail briefly. Inverting that order reads as missing the point. ## Appeals (CAR-specific) CAR has a **formal appeals process** with a built-in **one-month waiting period**, a **six-month deadline**, and a **new submission fee** required to appeal. Appeal only with a substantive, specific basis (a clear factual error or misreading), not general disagreement. ## Checklist - [ ] Confirm the manuscript was blind so review is genuinely double-anonymous - [ ] Identify the decision type and the subject Editor's first-order concerns - [ ] Separate reviewer-1 vs. reviewer-2 themes; note where they conflict - [ ] If acceptance is near, line up code, data availability statement, and Style Guide items - [ ] If appealing, verify the basis, the one-month wait, the six-month window, and the appeal fee ## Anti-patterns - **Treating an R&R as an acceptance** — the EIC still must approve, and reviewers can re-reject. - **Appealing on disagreement** rather than a demonstrable error, and ignoring the fee/timing rules. - **Guessing the reviewers' identities** or asking them to — both cut against CAR's anonymity norms. ## Output format ``` 【Decision type】desk reject / reject / R&R / conditional accept ... 【Decider】subject Editor disposition; EIC approves acceptance 【First-order concerns】(from the Editor's letter) ... 【Reviewer themes】R1 vs. R2; conflicts ... 【Appeal?】basis / one-month wait / six-month deadline / new fee ... 【Next step】car-rebuttal (on R&R) ``` --- **Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Contemporary-Accounting-Research-Skills/skills/car-review-process/SKILL.md`