thedixitjain Understanding the Review Process (smj-review-process)
When to trigger
- You want to understand what happens after submission and roughly how long it takes
- A decision letter arrived and you need to read it correctly before responding
- You must decide whether and how to revise, and how to manage the action editor relationship
- You are unsure how to weigh conflicting reviewer comments
How SMJ review works (durable norms)
- Submissions go through Wiley's workflow (legacy tracking at ScholarOne Manuscript Central, mc.manuscriptcentral.com/smj). One of SMJ's four Co-Editors (current slate, pinned 2026-06-23: Rajshree Agarwal (Maryland), Mary Benner (Minnesota), Vibha Gaba (INSEAD), and Brian Silverman (Toronto); roster rotates, so verify the live SMS masthead) screens the paper and assigns an action editor (Associate Editor) who handles it. SMJ has Co-Editors rather than a single Editor-in-Chief.
- Many submissions are desk-rejected for fit or readiness before review. Those that pass go to (typically) two or more reviewers from the Editorial Review Board and the field.
- The action editor writes a decision letter that synthesizes the reviews and signals priorities; expect multiple rounds — a first decision is rarely an outright accept, and Major Revision is a normal, encouraging outcome.
- SMJ is highly selective: third-party metric aggregators report an acceptance rate around 7% and a median time to first decision on the order of ~54 days (indicative — UNVERIFIED against the official site). Track your paper's status in the submission system rather than guessing.
- Reviewers and the action editor push hardest on two axes: a clear contribution to strategy theory and credible identification/endogeneity. A paper can be empirically clean yet rejected for a thin strategy contribution, and vice versa.
Reading a decision letter
| Decision | What it usually means |
|---|---|
| Desk reject (no review) | Fit/scope or readiness — often a non-strategy question (better at SEJ/GSJ/AMJ/ASQ), missing dual abstracts, or no credible identification |
| Reject (after review) | Scope/contribution or identification judged not fixable here |
| Reject & resubmit | Door not fully closed, but treat as a near-new submission |
| Major Revision | Genuine interest; substantial work expected over 1+ rounds |
| Minor Revision | Largely there; address specific points carefully |
- Read the action editor's letter first — it tells you which comments are binding and which are optional. The editor's synthesis outranks any single reviewer.
- Classify every comment: (a) must-fix to survive, (b) should-fix, (c) reasonable to push back on with evidence.
- Watch for the one issue that recurs across reviewers (often endogeneity or contribution); that is the gating concern.
Planning the revision
- Map all comments into a table: comment → reviewer → category → planned action.
- Sequence the gating concern first (usually identification or contribution); a revision that nails secondary points but dodges the gating concern fails.
- Decide where you will push back — politely, with evidence — versus comply. Disagreeing is acceptable if justified; ignoring is not.
- Estimate scope honestly: new analyses, new data, reframing. If the work cannot be done in the round, consider whether the paper fits SMJ.
- Keep the action editor's priorities central; align the response plan to the letter's emphasis.
Checklist
- You read the action editor's letter before the individual reviews
- Every comment is logged and categorized (must / should / push-back)
- The gating concern (identification or contribution) is identified and prioritized
- Conflicts between reviewers are noted, with a plan to reconcile or escalate to the editor
- The revision scope is realistic for one round
- You have decided which points you will respectfully contest, with evidence
Anti-patterns
- Treating all reviewers as equal and ignoring the action editor's synthesis
- Polishing easy comments while dodging the gating endogeneity/contribution concern
- Reading "Major Revision" as rejection and giving up — it is an invitation
- Arguing with a reviewer without evidence, or silently ignoring a comment
- Promising more than you can deliver in one round
- Starting the rebuttal letter before mapping and prioritizing the comments
Output format
【Decision】reject | reject-resubmit | major | minor
【Action-editor priorities】[from the letter]
【Gating concern】identification | contribution | other
【Comment map】count by category: must / should / push-back
【Reviewer conflicts】[noted + reconciliation plan]
【Revision feasible this round?】yes / reconsider fit
【Next step】smj-rebuttal
Templates & resources
../../resources/official-source-map.md— SMJ Co-Editors, double-blind policy, submission portal, and indicative timeline/acceptance figures
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Strategic-Management-Journal-Skills/skills/smj-review-process/SKILL.md