Review Process (jcr-review-process)

When to trigger

• You want to know what to expect after submitting to JCR
• A decision letter arrived and you need to read it before responding
• You are unsure who handles the manuscript and what each reviewer weighs
• You want to calibrate to JCR's developmental, multi-round culture

How JCR review is organized

JCR uses double-anonymized (masked) peer review: reviewers do not see author identity and authors do not see reviewers'. Editorially, the journal is led by an Editor in Chief (Oleg Urminsky, Chicago Booth, term Jan 1, 2025 – Dec 31, 2028) with Co-Editors who handle full manuscript portfolios, Associate Editors, an Editorial Review Board, and ad hoc reviewers. As of 2026-06-22 the Co-Editors are Jacob Goldenberg, Ellie Kyung, Meg Meloy, Daiane Scaraboto, and Stephen Spiller (Kyung and Scaraboto joined June 2026; Giana Eckhardt stepped down). The roster is time-sensitive — re-verify the current masthead at consumerresearcher.com before relying on specific names. The precise desk-assignment/routing mechanism is 待核实 (the official pages do not describe a fixed departmental area-editor routing); in practice a co-editor takes the manuscript and assigns reviewers.

JCR's identity as a multi-disciplinary journal shapes the review: you may draw reviewers from psychology, anthropology, sociology, economics, marketing, or statistics, and an experimental paper and a CCT paper are held to the same conceptual bar — advancing, deepening, or repudiating theory about consumption — even though their evidentiary standards differ.

What reviewers weigh

• Conceptual contribution first. Reviewers ask "what do we now understand about consumers?" as insistently as "is the evidence sound?" A robust effect with no theory advance will not clear the bar.
• Evidence appropriate to the genre. Experimentalists probe process evidence (mediation, manipulated mediators, boundary conditions, clean inference); interpretive reviewers probe trustworthiness, immersion, and the grounding of conceptual claims.
• Research transparency. Expect scrutiny of the Data Collection Statement, data/materials availability, replication code, and reporting completeness, especially at revision.
• Interdisciplinary legibility. A reviewer outside your subfield must be able to follow the argument.

Reading the decision letter

• Reject / desk reject: usually a fit or contribution problem — return to jcr-topic-selection / jcr-contribution-framing.
• Revise & resubmit (R&R): developmental; the editor's letter prioritizes which concerns are decisive. First-round accepts are essentially unheard of — an R&R is a strong signal.
• Map each reviewer point to a stage (theory / methods / analysis / framing / exhibits) and to the relevant jcr-* skill before drafting a response.
• Note any transparency conditions (post data/materials, supply code) that become required at invited revision.

Expectations & norms

• The process is developmental and multi-round; plan for substantial revision cycles.
• Treat the editor's framing as the spine of your revision priorities; reconcile conflicting reviewer requests transparently rather than averaging them.
• Re-anonymize the revised manuscript; double-anonymized review continues across rounds.

Anti-patterns

• Reading reviews as a checklist while ignoring the editor's priorities.
• Assuming the contribution is accepted because the method passed.
• Underestimating the number of revision rounds.
• Deferring transparency compliance until after acceptance.

Output format

【Decision type】reject / desk reject / R&R
【Editor's priorities】the decisive concerns, in order
【Reviewer map】each point → stage → jcr-* skill
【Genre standard】experimental process evidence / CCT trustworthiness
【Transparency conditions】data/materials/code required at revision?
【Next step】jcr-rebuttal (if R&R) or re-scope (if reject)