# Jms Review Process > Use when you need to understand or set expectations for the Journal of Management Studies (JMS) editorial and peer-review process — desk screening, double-blind developmental review, and reading a decision letter. Explains the process and how to read decisions; it does not draft the response letter (jms-rebuttal). - Skill: `thedixitjain/jms-review-process` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add thedixitjain/jms-review-process` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/thedixitjain/jms-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/jms-review-process --- # Understanding the Review Process (jms-review-process) ## When to trigger - Before submitting, to calibrate expectations about timeline, desk-reject odds, and decision types - A decision letter arrived and you need to interpret it (R&R vs. reject; major vs. minor) - You are unsure how much weight reviewers vs. the handling editor carry - You want to plan a revision strategy before drafting the response (then go to `jms-rebuttal`) > Editorial structure, named editors, and exact turnaround change; verify the current team and policies on the official Wiley/SAMS pages. As of `检索于 2026-06；以官网为准`: JMS uses **double-blind** review; the editorial office is at **Durham University**; the General Editors/Editor-in-Chief and exact timelines are **待核实** unless quoted from an official page at submission time. The norms below are durable. ## How JMS review works (durable norms) 1. **Submission & routing.** A fully anonymised manuscript enters via ScholarOne (mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jmstudies). A General Editor (or an Associate/handling Editor) screens it and, if it passes, routes it to a handling editor in the relevant area. 2. **Desk decision.** Manuscripts that are off-fit, that lack a clear **theoretical contribution**, that are out of scope, or that are not engaged with a management/organization conversation may be desk-rejected without external review. The most common desk-reject reason is "no clear contribution to theory." 3. **External peer review.** Typically two or more reviewers in the focal conversation evaluate the theoretical contribution and the rigor of the method — held to the same bar whether the paper is quantitative or qualitative. 4. **Editor synthesis.** The handling editor weighs the reviews, forms an independent judgment, and writes the decision letter. The **editor's letter — not a vote count** — drives the outcome. 5. **Decision.** Common outcomes: reject; reject with possible resubmission as new; **major revision (R&R)**; minor revision; (rarely) accept. A first-round acceptance is essentially unheard of. ## JMS is developmental and pluralist JMS's review culture is **developmental** and **method-pluralist**: an R&R is an invitation to improve the paper over (often) multiple rounds, and reviewers will push hardest on the **theoretical contribution**. For qualitative work, expect demands for a sharper model, clearer data-to-theory transparency, and a tighter contribution — *not* a demand to "add hypotheses." For quantitative work, expect endogeneity, CMB, and robustness pushback plus a "deepen the mechanism" demand. Treat an R&R as a serious opportunity, not a near-acceptance. ## Reading the decision letter - **Find the editor's priorities first.** The handling editor's letter signals which reviewer points are essential vs. optional; address the editor's framing above all. - **Distinguish fatal from fixable.** If the core contribution or identification concern is fatal and unaddressable, an honest reframe (or a different paper) beats a doomed revision. - **Gauge encouragement.** "We see promise" + major revision signals a real path; "does not make a sufficient theoretical contribution" signals reject. - **Count the asks by category.** Map every reviewer point to: theory / method / analysis / framing / writing — this becomes the plan that feeds `jms-rebuttal`. ## Planning the revision - Decide whether you can meet the **theoretical-contribution** demands; if not, no method fix will save the revision. - Scope new analyses, data, or fieldwork the reviewers imply and whether they are feasible in the window. - Identify where reviewers conflict; plan to surface the conflict for the editor rather than silently siding with one. ## Checklist - [ ] Decision type identified (R&R major/minor, reject-resubmit, reject) - [ ] The handling editor's priorities extracted and ranked above individual reviewer asks - [ ] Every reviewer comment categorised (theory / method / analysis / framing / writing) - [ ] Fatal vs. fixable concerns separated honestly - [ ] Feasibility of demanded new theory/data/analysis assessed against the deadline - [ ] Reviewer conflicts noted for the editor's attention ## Anti-patterns - Treating an R&R as a near-acceptance and making only cosmetic changes - Treating an R&R as a rejection and walking away from a viable path - Counting reviewer votes instead of reading the handling editor's letter - Responding to a qualitative-paper review as if it demanded hypotheses - Starting the response letter before mapping and planning the revision ## Output format ```text 【Decision type】R&R(major/minor) / reject-resubmit / reject 【Editor's priorities】1… 2… 3… 【Comment map】theory:[…] method:[…] analysis:[…] framing:[…] writing:[…] 【Fatal vs. fixable】… 【New work needed】theory / data / analysis — feasible? … 【Reviewer conflicts】… 【Next step】jms-rebuttal (plan revisions, then draft response) ``` --- **Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Journal-of-Management-Studies-Skills/skills/jms-review-process/SKILL.md`