# Mgsci Review Process

> Use to understand how Management Science (INFORMS) review and decisions work — the Department/area-editor desk screen, double-anonymized refereeing, the cross-department fit bar, official turnaround targets, and how to read a decision letter — before or after submitting. It explains the process; it does not draft the response (mgsci-rebuttal).

- Skill: `thedixitjain/mgsci-review-process` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add thedixitjain/mgsci-review-process`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/thedixitjain/mgsci-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/mgsci-review-process

---



# Review Process (mgsci-review-process)

## When to trigger

- You want to know what happens to a submission and how long it takes
- You are unsure who decides (Department Editor vs Associate Editor vs Editor-in-Chief)
- A paper was desk-rejected and you need to understand why
- You received a decision letter and want to read it correctly before responding

## How a submission flows

1. **Department/area routing.** A submission is channeled into a specific **Department** (e.g., Accounting; Behavioral Economics and Decision Analysis; Data Science; Entrepreneurship and Innovation; Finance; Healthcare Management; Information Systems; Market Design, Platform, and Demand Analytics; Marketing; Operations Management; Optimization and Decision Analytics; Organizations; Stochastic Models and Simulation; Strategy; Sustainability). The **Department Editor owns the desk screen and the standards** for that field.
2. **Desk screen.** The Department Editor, and possibly an Associate Editor, first evaluates whether the manuscript is a good fit for the department and has enough merit to send to reviewers. If not, the paper is returned with the editors' reasoning, commonly on **fit** ("better suited to Operations Research / M&SOM / Marketing Science") or insufficient rigor/contribution.
3. **External review.** If the manuscript passes the initial screen, an **Associate Editor** recruits reviewers and later recommends to the Department Editor. Review is **double-anonymous** — neither side sees the other's identity.
4. **Decision.** The Department Editor recommends; the **Editor-in-Chief (Christoph Loch, term 2024–2026)** provides final oversight and **cross-department arbitration** for ambiguous-fit papers.

## The cross-department fit bar

Beyond field rigor, papers are judged on whether they **belong in Management Science** versus a sister INFORMS journal. Ambiguous-fit papers spanning departments are discussed across the editorial team, and a large share are redirected. Expect "fit" to be a first-order screen, not an afterthought.

## Turnaround

The journal states that it strives to provide high-quality feedback to **90% of authors within 90 days**. If a paper is sent to reviewers, authors receive a Department Editor decision within **65 days on average**. Acceptance does not end the workflow: accepted numerical/computational papers still need the Code and Data Disclosure materials required before production.

## Reading a decision letter

- **Desk reject on fit** → re-aim (see `mgsci-topic-selection`) or target the named sister journal; usually not worth appealing.
- **Reject after review** → the contribution or rigor did not clear the bar; a major reframe is needed.
- **Major revision (R&R)** → a real opportunity; the Department Editor's framing letter signals which reviewer points are decisive. Go to `mgsci-rebuttal`.
- **Minor revision** → rare early; address precisely and quickly.

Read the **Department Editor's letter first** — it tells you which reviewer concerns are binding and which are advisory.

## Desk-reject reason map

Because Management Science is the multidisciplinary INFORMS flagship, the desk screen is run by a Department Editor enforcing that department's rigor bar and the cross-department fit test.

| Desk-reject reason | What it signals | Implied next move |
|--------------------|-----------------|-------------------|
| "Better suited to a sister INFORMS journal" | A routing verdict, not necessarily quality | Re-aim or target the named journal |
| "Contribution does not clear the bar" | Rigor present, decision insight thin | Reframe; do not just resubmit |
| "No clear home department" | Ambiguous-fit; arbitration redirected it | Name a department + the bridge |

## Worked micro-example (illustrative): two letters

Letter A: "Interesting model, but the algorithmic contribution would be better appreciated at Operations Research." This is a routing verdict — the work may be excellent, just mis-homed; do not appeal. Letter B: "The identification does not rule out selection, and the managerial implication is unclear." This is a substantive reject on two flagship bars (empirical leverage and a decision-relevant contribution); a major reframe plus a stronger design is needed. Distinguishing routing from substantive rejects decides whether you re-aim or rebuild.

## Referee-pushback patterns and the venue-specific fix

- **"Which department is this, and does it clear that bar?"** Make the home department explicit at submission so the right editor desk-screens it; confirm the design meets that department's standard.
- **"This belongs at a sister INFORMS journal."** Surface the cross-department travel that distinguishes a flagship paper.

## Calibration anchor

Turnaround targets, department rosters, and disclosure requirements evolve — treat the values above as current official guidance and re-check the source map before submission or appeal advice.

## Anti-patterns

- Treating a fit-based desk reject as a quality verdict (it is often a routing verdict).
- Ignoring the Department Editor's prioritization and weighting all reviewer comments equally.
- Assuming acceptance means immediate publication — disclosure verification still runs.

## Output format

```
【Stage】desk screen / under review / decision received
【Department & decider】Department Editor / AE / EiC
【Decision type】desk-reject(fit) / reject / R&R / minor
【Binding concerns】[from the DE letter]
【Next step】mgsci-rebuttal (R&R) or mgsci-topic-selection (re-aim)
```

---

**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Management-Science-Skills/skills/mgsci-review-process/SKILL.md`