Asq Review Process

---
name: asq-review-process
description: Use when understanding and navigating Administrative Science Quarterly's (ASQ) developmental, multi-round review process — decision types, reviewer/editor roles, and what each stage expects. Explains the process; it does not draft the response letter (see asq-rebuttal).
---

# Review Process Navigation (asq-review-process)

## When to trigger

- You are about to submit and want to set expectations for the review
- A decision letter arrived and you need to interpret it before responding
- You are unsure how ASQ's developmental review differs from a desk-reject-heavy journal
- You need to decide whether an invitation to revise is worth pursuing

## How ASQ review works (durable norms)

ASQ is known for a **developmental, craft-focused, double-blind** review process. Editors and reviewers typically engage deeply with the *idea* and aim to help promising papers become their best version. The editorship passed from **Christine Beckman and András Tilcsik** to **Beth Bechky** (UC Davis; term began July 1, 2025), and recent editorial communications have foregrounded **curation** — shaping a smaller set of enduring papers rather than maximizing throughput. The three questions editors say they ask of any manuscript: does it (1) advance understanding of organizing (teams, enterprises, markets), (2) develop a new theoretical account or findings that challenge prior understanding, and (3) address a significant, challenging problem of management? Expect:

- **No submission fee** (ASQ has no mandatory submission or publication charge), but **selectivity is severe**: reported acceptance is around **8%** (third-party trackers, not an official figure — verify).
- **Editorial screening** for fit and contribution before papers go out to review; thin-theory, off-scope, or excessively long manuscripts are returned/unsubmitted without full review.
- **Multiple expert reviewers** plus a handling editor who synthesizes and adds editorial direction.
- **Multiple rounds.** A path to acceptance often runs through two or more revision rounds; this is normal, not a bad sign.
- **Developmental tone.** Reviews can be long and demanding precisely because reviewers take the idea seriously — read them as collaboration, not gatekeeping.

Note that qualitative manuscripts are reviewed by reviewers fluent in inductive standards, not forced through a variance-theory lens. A previously rejected paper may **not** be resubmitted, even substantially revised.

## Decision types (typical)

- **Reject** — usually on fit, insufficient contribution, or a fatal design flaw. Read for whether the core idea is salvageable elsewhere.
- **Reject with encouragement to resubmit as new** — the idea has promise but needs fundamental rework; not a continuation of the same file.
- **Revise & Resubmit (R&R)** — the editor sees a viable path; this is a real opportunity. High-, medium-, or low-risk framing signals how far you are.
- **Conditional acceptance / Accept** — remaining changes are limited.

## Reading the decision letter

1. **Start with the editor's letter**, not the reviews — it tells you which points are binding and how to prioritize.
2. **Identify the deal-breakers** vs. the nice-to-haves; editors usually flag the essentials.
3. **Look for the theoretical ask.** At ASQ the central request is often "deepen/sharpen the contribution," not just "add a robustness check."
4. **Detect reviewer disagreement** and note where the editor has adjudicated.
5. **Estimate feasibility honestly** before committing to the revision.

## What each round expects

- **Round 1 → R&R:** address the theoretical core and the biggest design concerns; show the contribution more clearly.
- **Round 2:** demonstrate that you took the development seriously; reviewers check whether the *idea* matured, not just whether boxes were ticked.
- **Later rounds:** convergence — polish, craft, and closing remaining gaps.

## Deciding whether to revise

- Revise if the editor signals a viable path and the core idea survives the critique intact.
- Reconsider the venue if the required changes would gut the contribution or if reviewers reject the premise (not just the execution).

## Checklist

- [ ] Editor's letter read first; binding points identified
- [ ] Deal-breakers separated from optional suggestions
- [ ] The central *theoretical* ask is identified
- [ ] Reviewer disagreements and editor adjudications noted
- [ ] Feasibility of a credible revision assessed honestly
- [ ] Decision made: revise (path viable) vs. redirect (premise rejected)

## Anti-patterns

- Treating a demanding developmental review as hostile and responding defensively
- Reading the reviews before the editor's letter and mis-prioritizing
- Treating an R&R as acceptance, or a high-risk R&R as a guarantee
- Ignoring the theoretical ask and only doing the mechanical/robustness fixes
- Committing to a revision that would destroy the contribution to satisfy one reviewer

## Output format

```
【Decision type】reject / resubmit-as-new / R&R (risk level) / conditional
【Editor's core ask】theoretical / design / craft
【Deal-breakers】[...]
【Reviewer disagreements】[...] + editor's steer
【Go / no-go】revise or redirect + rationale
【Next step】asq-rebuttal (if revising)
```