Understanding TAR Review (tar-review-process)
When to trigger
- You want to set realistic expectations before or after submitting to TAR
- A decision letter arrived and you need to read its signal before responding
- You are unsure who the Senior Editor / Lead Editor / Editor / Ad hoc Editor are in the process
- You want to know what "anonymity," "data authenticity," or "Expression of Concern" mean for you
How TAR routes a manuscript
TAR uses a tiered editor structure distinct from INFORMS-style permanent departmental
area-editors:
- A single Senior Editor oversees the whole process — Mohan Venkatachalam (Duke, Fuqua),
sitting Senior Editor since June 2026 (succeeding Kathryn Kadous, Emory; verify the current masthead).
- Named Lead Editors (e.g., Brian Mittendorf, Edward L. Maydew, Kristina M. Rennekamp, Paul
Hribar) share Senior-Editor responsibilities: assigning editors, issuing decision letters, handling
desk rejections and appeals.
- A bench of roughly two dozen standing Editors handle manuscripts in their areas (roster 待核实).
-
Ad hoc Editors are appointed for specialized topics/methods a manuscript requires.
A submission may be desk-rejected by a Lead Editor before review if fit or contribution is
insufficient. Manuscripts that pass initial screening go to an editor and a minimum of two
reviewers under double-blind review — protecting the anonymity of both authors and reviewers is
described as one of the most critical goals of the process. (Among AAA journals, only the Journal of
Financial Reporting uses single-blind review; TAR is double-blind.)
Reading the decision
-
Desk reject: fit/contribution/identification judged insufficient without external review — re-aim
the paper (often a section or specialist journal) rather than appeal reflexively.
-
Reject after review: the editor and reviewers see a fundamental flaw — usually identification,
contribution, or measurement. Salvage requires a different study, not cosmetic edits.
-
Revise and resubmit (R&R): the developmental, multi-round path to publication. Read the
editor's letter first — it prioritizes which reviewer points are decision-critical.
- Distinguish decision-critical demands (identification, contribution, a needed test) from
discretionary ones; the editor's framing tells you which is which.
Integrity & post-publication rules to know
-
Plagiarism screening and anonymity apply throughout; do not contact reviewers or de-anonymize.
-
Data authenticity is enforced — be ready to provide the data description and processing code if
the editor or reviewers ask (see
tar-data-analysis).
-
Expression of Concern: AAA may issue one if an institutional research-integrity investigation
exceeds 180 days — a formalized post-publication integrity step worth understanding before any
question arises.
What you control
- A clean, anonymized, reproducible submission lowers desk-reject risk.
- Suggesting fitting, non-conflicted area keywords helps route you to the right editor.
- Mind the 8 first-round submissions / 24 months cap when timing submissions (R&Rs are exempt).
Checklist
Anti-patterns
-
Appealing a desk reject reflexively instead of re-aiming the paper.
-
Treating every reviewer point as equal and missing the editor's priorities.
-
Reading reviews before the editor's letter and mis-weighting the demands.
-
De-anonymizing by guessing reviewers or contacting the editor informally.
-
Confusing reject with R&R and over- or under-investing in the response.
Output format
【Decision type】desk reject / reject / R&R
【Editor priorities (from the letter)】1... 2... 3...
【Decision-critical vs discretionary】critical: ... ; discretionary: ...
【Routing】Senior/Lead/Editor/Ad hoc — area fit ...
【Integrity items】data-authenticity ready? anonymity preserved? yes/no
【Next step】on R&R → tar-rebuttal; on reject → tar-topic-selection / re-aim
