Jcf Review Process

---
name: jcf-review-process
description: Use to understand and plan around the Journal of Corporate Finance (JCF) review process — single-anonymized (single-blind) refereeing, a minimum of two reviewers, an active desk-rejection policy, and required Elsevier declarations. It sets expectations and timing strategy; it does not draft the manuscript or the rebuttal.
---

# Review Process (jcf-review-process)

## When to trigger

- Setting expectations for what happens after you submit
- Deciding how to handle the single-anonymized model and required declarations
- Planning for the desk-rejection screen and the reviewer round

## How JCF review works (verified; re-confirm on the official guide)

- **Single anonymized (single-blind) peer review.** Reviewers see the authors' identities; authors do **not** see reviewers. There is **no double-blind anonymization** to perform — do **not** strip your name and affiliation.
- Suitable submissions are sent to a **minimum of two independent reviewers**.
- An **active desk-rejection policy** rejects a non-trivial fraction of papers **without full review** to reduce reviewer burden — the editor screen is real and fast.
- A **competing-interest declaration** is required via Elsevier's declarations tool, and a **generative-AI disclosure** is required at submission.

## Implications for strategy

- Because review is single-anonymized, your reputation and prior work are **visible** — frame self-citations naturally, but do not assume name recognition substitutes for a clean design.
- Clearing the **desk screen** depends on a legible contribution and credible identification on page one (see jcf-contribution-framing, jcf-identification-strategy). Expect scrutiny of whether the paper is truly corporate finance and whether the mechanism is first-order.
- Two reviewers means two independent sets of demands at R&R — anticipate divergent asks (see jcf-rebuttal).

## Pre-submission checklist

- [ ] Manuscript is **not** anonymized (single-blind — author identity expected)
- [ ] Competing-interest declaration and generative-AI disclosure prepared
- [ ] Contribution and identification legible up front (desk-screen ready)
- [ ] US$340 fee ready (paid at submission; see jcf-submission)

## Anti-patterns

- Double-blind anonymizing a single-anonymized submission.
- Assuming a desk decision means a thorough review — it often does not.
- Skipping the required declarations and stalling the submission.

## Output

```
【Model】single-anonymized — author identity shown? [confirmed]
【Declarations】competing-interest + AI disclosure ready? [Y/N]
【Desk-screen】contribution + ID legible up front? [Y/N]
【Reviewers】expect ≥2 independent → plan divergent R&R
```