Jhr Review Process

---
name: jhr-review-process
description: Use to understand and plan around the Journal of Human Resources (JHR) editorial process — single-anonymous review, the fast desk-reject without outside review, the reconciliation requirement, and the optional review-recycling shortcut. Sets expectations; it does not draft the paper.
---

# Editorial Process (jhr-review-process)

## When to trigger

- Setting expectations on timelines and decision types at JHR
- Deciding whether to attach a prior journal's reports to speed review
- Understanding why a paper might be desk-rejected without referees
- Wanting to pre-empt the reconciliation / sensitivity demands referees apply

## How JHR review works (verified 2026-06-01)

- **Single-anonymous (single-blind):** "Referees are anonymous, but author names are not kept from reviewers." The process is run by the **Editor (Anna Aizer, Brown; Michael Lovenheim, Cornell, from 2026-07-01)**, coeditors, and associate editors, with volunteer expert reviewers.
- **Fast desk-reject WITHOUT outside review.** Papers a handling editor/coeditor judges unlikely to survive review are **released quickly without being sent to referees**, at the editor's discretion. The **$175 fee does not guarantee outside review** and is **not refunded** for out-of-scope (management/personnel) papers — so the desk screen is the first real hurdle.
- **Reconciliation requirement (distinctive):** manuscripts are judged partly on whether they **reconcile their results with prior published work** on the same topic. Authors **may be required to run comparative estimation** (re-estimate under the prior literature's spec/sample) and **present sensitivity tests**. Build this in before submitting, not after a referee demands it.
- **Review-recycling shortcut (optional):** authors may **submit a prior journal's decision letter and referee reports**; JHR may use them — and may **contact the prior journal's editor or referees** — to speed review. Useful when a paper was close at another journal and the reports are constructive.

## How to act on it

- Treat the **desk screen** as the highest-leverage gate: a legible policy-relevant question, a clearly stated identifying variation, and a one-paragraph reconciliation note give the handling editor a reason to send it out.
- If a prior submission generated strong-but-fixable reports, consider attaching them — but only if your revision genuinely answers them.
- Anticipate the reconciliation ask in `jhr-data-analysis`: have the comparative estimates and sensitivity tests ready.

## Checklist

- [ ] Question and identifying variation legible in the first two pages (desk screen)
- [ ] Reconciliation with prior published estimates addressed up front
- [ ] Comparative estimation and sensitivity tests prepared
- [ ] Decision made on whether to attach prior-journal reports
- [ ] Scope confirmed (not HR-management) so the fee is not wasted

## Anti-patterns

- Assuming the fee buys outside review — it does not
- Ignoring prior published estimates that contradict yours
- Attaching old referee reports the revision does not actually address
- Burying the identifying variation past the desk-reading window

## Output format

```
【Decision risk】desk-reject likelihood / why
【Reconciliation】prior estimates addressed? [Y/N]
【Sensitivity】comparative/robustness ready? [Y/N]
【Recycling】attach prior reports? [Y/N + reason]
【Next step】jhr-submission or jhr-rebuttal
```