# Orgsci Review Process

> Use when you want to understand how Organization Science review and decisions work before or after submitting — the decentralized senior-editor model with strong SE autonomy, the conflict-of-interest routing cascade, double-blind submission preparation, and how to read a decision letter at this venue.

- Skill: `thedixitjain/orgsci-review-process` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add thedixitjain/orgsci-review-process`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/thedixitjain/orgsci-review-process/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: AI & ML
- Author: thedixitjain (https://skillmd.com/u/thedixitjain)
- Updated: 2026-09-08
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/thedixitjain/orgsci-review-process

---



# Review Process (orgsci-review-process)

## When to trigger

- You are about to submit and want to set expectations
- You received a decision letter and need to interpret who decided and why
- You are unsure how Organization Science routing differs from a departmental area-editor journal

## The decentralized senior-editor model

Organization Science runs a **decentralized model**: **Senior Editors** plus an **Editorial Review Board**, under Editor-in-Chief **Lamar Pierce** (Washington University in St. Louis). Each **Senior Editor has strong autonomy** — an SE can independently **accept, reject, or request an R&R**. This differs sharply from sister journal Management Science's fixed **departmental area-editor** routing: here the SE decides your paper, not a department head dispatching to an area editor. Routing follows a **conflict-of-interest cascade** — the **EIC handles deputy-editor submissions** and **deputy editors handle senior-editor submissions** — so editors do not adjudicate their own work.

## What happens to your submission

- **Desk review.** The EIC/SE can see the cover letter and abstract. An unconvincing contribution,
  poor fit, transparency gap, or excessive length can produce a **desk reject** (overlong submissions
  may be returned with an option to resubmit shorter).
- **Peer review.** If sent out, it goes to **at least two reviewers**; follow the submission guidelines'
  double-blind preparation rules and keep the main manuscript anonymized. The cover letter is seen by
  the EIC and SE but **not** by reviewers.
- **Decision.** The SE synthesizes reviews into accept / reject / R&R. First-round accepts are rare; the realistic best early outcome is a **major R&R**.

## Reading the decision letter

- **Identify the decider.** The SE letter is binding; reviewer comments are inputs the SE weights — when they differ, the SE's framing governs your revision priorities.
- **Find the core concern.** Usually **overall contribution**, mechanism, or fit — not just method, given the "novelty is neither necessary nor sufficient" stance and the acceptance that causal identification is often impossible.
- **Note the window.** The submission guidelines ask authors to resubmit invited revisions within
  **6 months** unless the editor grants an exception.

## Anti-patterns

- Treating reviewer comments as equal to the SE's verdict and ignoring the SE's prioritization.
- Expecting area-editor routing or ignoring the 2025 data/methods transparency policy.
- Assuming a desk return is a rejection when it may be a fixable compliance or length issue.


## Review-risk pass for Organization Science

Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock a level map, a mechanism paragraph, and the cover-letter contribution statement; then test whether the manuscript addresses interdisciplinary organization reviewers who ask whether the mechanism travels across levels of analysis.

- **Primary move:** Turn likely reviewer objections into a ledger with response evidence, manuscript location, and the decision-maker who must be convinced first.
- **Decision ledger:** return `claim / evidence / blocker / next edit` rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
- **Neighbor test:** compare against AMJ for empirical management framing, ASQ for organization-theory depth, Management Science for formal/quantitative operations; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
- **Submission-ready gate:** before final advice, re-open `resources/official-source-map.md` for
  upload-week rules and name the one live-check item that could change the recommendation.

## Output format

```
【Decider】Senior Editor (autonomous accept/reject/R&R); EIC Lamar Pierce; COI cascade routing
【Stage reached】desk return / desk reject / out for review / R&R / reject
【Core concern】overall contribution / mechanism / fit (method usually secondary)
【SE vs reviewers】whose framing governs the revision
【Window】6-month invited-revision window unless editor grants an exception
【Next step】orgsci-rebuttal
```

---

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