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

【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)