Artbull Review Process

---
name: artbull-review-process
description: Use to understand how The Art Bulletin evaluates a submission — double-blind peer review, what referees and the editor look for in art-historical work, and the likely decision outcomes. Helps anticipate review; it does not contact editors or simulate a specific referee.
---

# Review Process (artbull-review-process)

The Art Bulletin uses **double-blind peer review**: both author and reviewers are anonymous, which is
why submissions must be **Microsoft Word (not PDF)** with all author-identifying information stripped
from text and notes. Knowing what referees weigh helps you pre-empt the objections that sink papers.

## When to trigger

- Before submitting, to pressure-test the paper against likely referee objections
- Understanding why anonymity (Word, no self-revealing citations) matters procedurally
- Interpreting a decision letter and planning next steps
- Deciding whether the contribution is strong enough for the discipline's flagship

## How the journal evaluates

1. **Double-blind, expert review.** The editor sends anonymized manuscripts to specialist referees;
   anonymity protects the process, so any breach (names, "as I argued in…," telltale metadata) is a
   real risk (see `artbull-submission`).
2. **What referees weigh.** The originality and significance of the **art-historical argument**; the
   quality of **close visual analysis**; the soundness of documentary, archival, and provenance
   evidence; command of the **historiography**; and whether the figures support the claims.
3. **Images are part of review.** Referees judge whether the illustrations are adequate and whether
   the visual claims are visible in them — thin or absent figures undermine the case.
4. **Editorial judgment.** The editor-in-chief weighs referee reports and decides; rigorous peer
   review is central to the journal's standing.
5. **Likely outcomes.** Reject; revise and resubmit (the common path for promising work needing more);
   or accept (often conditional). Plan for an R&R rather than a clean accept.

## Pre-empt the common objections

- "Description, not argument" → strengthen the thesis (see `artbull-argument-development`).
- "Thin looking" → deepen close analysis and supply detail figures (see `artbull-visual-analysis`).
- "Ignores key scholarship" → fix positioning (see `artbull-scholarly-positioning`).
- "Evidence does not support the claim" → tighten sources (see `artbull-evidence-and-sources`).

## Anti-patterns

- Breaking anonymity in text, notes, or file metadata (see `artbull-submission`)
- Submitting before the argument and figures can withstand expert scrutiny
- Expecting a clean accept; not budgeting time for an R&R
- Treating reviewer disagreement as defeat rather than direction

## Output format

```
【Model】double-blind; anonymity intact? [Y/N]
【Referee axes】argument · visual analysis · evidence · historiography · figures
【Weakest axis】where a referee will push → which skill fixes it
【Likely outcome】reject / R&R / (conditional) accept — plan accordingly
【Next】artbull-submission (pre-submit) or artbull-revision-and-response (post-decision)
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — anonymization and manuscript-prep tooling
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — double-blind policy and review wording (待核实)