# Jmr Review Process > 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. - Skill: `thedixitjain/jmr-review-process` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add thedixitjain/jmr-review-process` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/thedixitjain/jmr-review-process/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Marketing & Growth - Author: thedixitjain (https://skillmd.com/u/thedixitjain) - Updated: 2026-09-08 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/thedixitjain/jmr-review-process --- # 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 1. **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). 2. **Double-anonymized peer review** — identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from both parties. 3. **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 ```text [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 - [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) - [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) --- **Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Journal-of-Marketing-Research-Skills/skills/jmr-review-process/SKILL.md`