Jm Review Process

---
name: jm-review-process
description: Use when understanding how Journal of Marketing (JM) review and decisions work — the double-anonymized process, the Coeditor structure, the substantive-and-relevance evaluation bar, and how to read a decision letter. Explains the process and reads the letter; it does not draft the response (jm-rebuttal).
---

# Review Process (jm-review-process)

## When to trigger

- Before submitting, to set realistic expectations about JM review
- A decision letter arrived and you need to interpret it before responding
- You are unsure who decides at JM and what reviewers are told to weigh
- You want to know what "conditional acceptance" triggers (replication packet)

## How JM review works

- **Double-anonymized**: identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. Keep all rounds anonymized; never reveal yourself in responses or revised files.
- **Decision authority**: the handling **Editor is the final decision authority**. Under EiC Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp, manuscripts are handled by one of four **Coeditors** — Marc Fischer (Cologne), Kelly L. Haws (Vanderbilt), Maura L. Scott (Arizona State), Rebecca J. Slotegraaf (Indiana). Your keyword/area choices influence routing.
- **What reviewers weigh**: JM's gatekeeping criterion is **substantive impact** — does the paper offer compelling new insight into an important real-world marketing question, *with* managerial/policy/societal relevance? Reviewers also screen for scope: general-management papers, methods-for-their-own-sake papers, and incremental/new-context replications are out of scope. Expect probes on identification, exact-statistic reporting, and whether the magnitude matters.
- **Integrity**: manuscripts are screened with iThenticate; no concurrent submission.

## Likely decisions

| Decision                 | What it means                                                       |
|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Desk reject              | Out of scope, not substantive enough, or relevance absent           |
| Reject (after review)    | Substantive contribution or identification judged insufficient      |
| Major revision (R&R)     | Promising substantive core; significant work required               |
| Minor revision           | Substantively sound; targeted fixes                                 |
| Conditional acceptance   | Triggers the **JM Dataverse replication packet** + Data Availability Statement |

First-round acceptances are essentially unheard of; a well-run R&R is the realistic best case.

## Reading the decision letter

- Read the **Coeditor letter first** — it states the path to acceptance and which concerns are decisive ("must address") versus secondary.
- Cluster reviewer comments by theme: **substantive contribution**, **identification/analysis**, **managerial relevance**, **positioning**, **exposition**.
- Flag any comment touching the **substantive-novelty** or **relevance** bar as top priority — these are JM's gatekeeping criteria.
- Note transparency expectations early: if you are near conditional acceptance, prepare the **JM Dataverse** packet (data + code, or qualitative materials) and confirm preregistration links/attestation.
- Distinguish requests that need **new data/analysis** from those needing **reframing** — they have very different timelines.

## At conditional acceptance

Deposit the replication packet to **JM's Dataverse** (raw data, analysis programs/scripts; qualitative materials for qualitative work), accessible to the **processing Editor** but not reviewers, and ensure the **Data Availability Statement** is on the title page. (JM does not specify a dedicated Data-Editor verification step the way JMR does — 待核实.)

## Checklist

- [ ] Coeditor letter parsed: decisive vs. secondary concerns identified
- [ ] Reviewer comments clustered by theme
- [ ] Substantive-novelty and relevance comments flagged as top priority
- [ ] New-data vs. reframing requests separated (timeline planning)
- [ ] Conditional-acceptance transparency steps anticipated (JM Dataverse + DAS)

## Anti-patterns

- Treating all reviewer comments as equal weight, ignoring the Coeditor's priorities.
- De-anonymizing yourself in a response or revised file.
- Reading a major R&R as a near-accept and doing superficial edits.
- Deferring replication-packet prep until after conditional acceptance scrambles the timeline.

## Output format

```
【Decision】desk reject / reject / major R&R / minor / conditional accept
【Coeditor priorities】must-address: [...]; secondary: [...]
【Comment clusters】substantive / identification / relevance / positioning / exposition
【Gatekeeper flags】novelty + relevance comments: [...]
【New data vs. reframing】[...]
【Transparency next】JM Dataverse + DAS readiness: [...]
【Next step】jm-rebuttal
```