Car Review Process

---
name: car-review-process
description: Use when you need to understand how Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR) evaluates a manuscript — the double-anonymous, two-reviewer process, the role of the subject Editor and the EIC who approves all acceptances, generative-AI rules for reviewers, and CAR's formal appeals process. Explains the process; it does not draft the revision response (car-rebuttal).
---

# Review Process (car-review-process)

## When to trigger

- Before submitting, to calibrate expectations for CAR's process and timeline
- A decision letter arrived and you need to read its signals before responding
- You are unsure who decides at CAR (reviewers vs. subject Editor vs. EIC)
- You are weighing whether to appeal a rejection

## How CAR review works

- **Double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review.** The manuscript file is blind (no author-identifying information), with a separate title page. *(The "double-anonymous" label is inferred from CAR's documented blind-manuscript and reviewer-anonymity requirements; 待核实 for the exact CAR phrasing.)*
- **Two reviewers.** The Editor normally assigns **two reviewers**, who provide reports and recommendations.
- **Who decides.** The assigned **subject Editor** (one of ~24 handling editors) makes the disposition decision; the **Editor-in-Chief (Anup Srivastava) reviews and approves all acceptance decisions.** Deputy EICs (Demers, Edwards, Stolowy) and Consulting Editors support the team.
- **Reviewer conduct.** Reviewers must report conflicts of interest and are actively discouraged from trying to identify authors. From Jan 1, 2024, reviewers are **prohibited from using generative-AI tools** in the review process.

## Reading a CAR decision letter

- **Reject / desk reject.** A desk reject on/after Apr 1, 2021 carries a **50% fee refund**. Treat substantive rejects as venue or framing feedback; do not resubmit the same paper without a major rethink.
- **Revise and resubmit (R&R).** The expected path to acceptance at a top accounting journal. Map each reviewer's and the Editor's points; the subject Editor's letter signals which concerns are first-order. **Invited revisions pay no further submission fee.**
- **Conditional acceptance / acceptance.** The EIC must approve; expect final-version requirements (code archiving, data availability statement, CAR Style Guide conformance, author X/Twitter handles for promotion).

## Appeals (CAR-specific)

CAR has a **formal appeals process** with a built-in **one-month waiting period**, a **six-month deadline**, and a **new submission fee** required to appeal. Appeal only with a substantive, specific basis (a clear factual error or misreading), not general disagreement.

## Checklist

- [ ] Confirm the manuscript was blind so review is genuinely double-anonymous
- [ ] Identify the decision type and the subject Editor's first-order concerns
- [ ] Separate reviewer-1 vs. reviewer-2 themes; note where they conflict
- [ ] If acceptance is near, line up code, data availability statement, and Style Guide items
- [ ] If appealing, verify the basis, the one-month wait, the six-month window, and the appeal fee

## Anti-patterns

- **Treating an R&R as an acceptance** — the EIC still must approve, and reviewers can re-reject.
- **Appealing on disagreement** rather than a demonstrable error, and ignoring the fee/timing rules.
- **Guessing the reviewers' identities** or asking them to — both cut against CAR's anonymity norms.

## Output format

```
【Decision type】desk reject / reject / R&R / conditional accept ...
【Decider】subject Editor disposition; EIC approves acceptance
【First-order concerns】(from the Editor's letter) ...
【Reviewer themes】R1 vs. R2; conflicts ...
【Appeal?】basis / one-month wait / six-month deadline / new fee ...
【Next step】car-rebuttal (on R&R)
```