Jar Review Process

---
name: jar-review-process
description: Use when setting expectations for how Journal of Accounting Research (JAR) review and decisions work, or when reading a JAR decision letter — the Senior-Editor-panel structure, double-anonymized review, the desk-screen and tiered-fee gate, and the distinctive Ray Ball Conference and Registered Reports tracks. Explains the process; it does not draft the R&R response (jar-rebuttal).
---

# Understanding the JAR Review Process (jar-review-process)

## When to trigger

- Before submitting, to understand what to expect at JAR specifically
- A decision letter arrived and you need to read it correctly
- You are deciding between the regular track, a Registered Report, or the conference
- You are unsure how the editor-panel structure assigns and decides papers

## How JAR is governed and decides

JAR has **no single editor-in-chief**. It is run by a panel of **Senior Editors** (Philip G. Berger, Anna Costello, Luzi Hail, Valeri Nikolaev, Haresh Sapra, Laurence van Lent, Regina Wittenberg Moerman), supported by ~18 Associate Editors and Editorial Manager Lisa M. Heiberger. A submission is assigned to a Senior Editor who, typically with one or more Associate Editors and external referees, runs a **double-anonymized** review of regular manuscripts. The journal is sponsored by the **Chookaszian Accounting Research Center at Chicago Booth** and published with Wiley-Blackwell — a single-center "house" identity rather than a scholarly-society journal.

## Gates before and during review

- **Desk screen / conformance.** Non-conforming submissions can be **desk-rejected** (with only a **half refund** of the fee). Get format, anonymization, scope, and the article type right before submitting.
- **Tiered fee gate.** The **$750 / $500 / $50** fee must be **received within one week** or the paper is withdrawn — an explicit pay-to-review gate; budget for it.
- **Submission cap.** At most **four new papers per author over a rolling two-year period** (R&Rs excluded) — plan which projects to send.

## Reading a JAR decision

Outcomes range from desk reject, to reject after review, to **revise-and-resubmit (R&R)**, to (rarely on a first round) acceptance. Treat an R&R as a serious invitation: identify which referee concerns are **first-order** (identification, the channel, sample/measurement) versus second-order (exposition, additional robustness). The Senior Editor's letter is the binding guide — it prioritizes among the referees. First-round accepts are essentially unheard of; multiple rounds are normal.

## The distinctive tracks

- **Ray Ball JAR Annual Conference.** A flagship conference at Chicago Booth funded by the Chookaszian Center; selected papers are considered **simultaneously** for the conference and for journal publication and appear in the **conference issue** (historically June) **subject to passing normal editorial review**. The **62nd (2027)** conference is themed **"Current Topics in Accounting Research by Emerging Scholars,"** giving **preference to untenured authors who received a PhD no earlier than 2017**; submission deadline **Dec 1, 2026**; conference dates **Apr 30-May 1, 2027**. Verify the current call.
- **Registered Reports.** A **two-stage** process pioneered at JAR in 2017 (with Robert Bloomfield): authors pre-register hypotheses and an analysis plan; after **Stage 1** protocol review the journal grants **in-principle acceptance**, guaranteeing publication regardless of whether results support predictions, provided the approved protocol is followed at **Stage 2**. Best for higher-outcome-risk work requiring new data collection.

## Checklist

- [ ] You know which Senior Editor track / article type fits and submitted accordingly
- [ ] Format/anonymization conform (to avoid a half-refund desk reject)
- [ ] Fee payment within one week is arranged; within the four-new/two-year cap
- [ ] You have parsed the editor letter's first-order vs. second-order concerns
- [ ] If relevant: Ray Ball eligibility/deadline or Registered Reports stage understood

## Anti-patterns

- **Treating JAR like a single-EIC journal** — it is an editor panel.
- **Skimping on conformance** and drawing a desk reject with only a half refund.
- **Reading every referee point as equal** instead of following the editor's priorities.
- **Misusing the conference track** (ignoring eligibility/theme) or the RR track (no real pre-registration).

## Output format

```
【Decision type】desk reject / reject / R&R / accept
【Editor priorities】first-order: [...]; second-order: [...]
【Track】regular / Ray Ball conference / Registered Report (stage)
【Gates】conformance / fee-timing / submission-cap status
【What to do next】revise per editor → jar-rebuttal
```

## Resources

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — official JAR/Chicago Booth/Wiley URLs (accessed 2026-06-01); editor roster and conference theme are live-check items
- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — submission and reproducibility tooling