Jmf Review Process

---
name: jmf-review-process
description: Use to understand how the Journal of Marriage and Family (JMF) evaluates a manuscript — double-blind anonymous peer review, editor and reviewer roles (typically three reviewers, ~21-day review window), the revise-and-resubmit pathway, and what triggers desk handling. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.
---

# Review Process (jmf-review-process)

Knowing how JMF screens and decides lets you pre-empt failure modes before submitting. JMF is
**double-blind**: reviewers do not know who you are and you do not know them, so anonymization is not
optional. Verify volatile specifics (editor, exact timelines, decision labels) on the official pages.

## When to trigger

- Before submitting, to stress-test against likely reviewer objections
- Interpreting a decision letter and setting expectations
- Understanding what reviewers and editors are instructed to weigh
- Deciding whether the work is ready or needs another round before submission

## How JMF review works

1. **Double-blind anonymous.** The manuscript must omit author names, affiliations, contact
   information, and acknowledgements, and neutralize self-citations to work under review/forthcoming
   (see `jmf-submission`).
2. **Editorial handling.** An editor (or designate) screens the manuscript and, if it proceeds,
   identifies reviewers — typically **three** specialists in the topic or method, who are given about
   **21 days** to complete a review (figures per NCFR editorial-process pages; confirm current).
3. **What reviewers weigh.** Family-science contribution and significance; framework and hypotheses;
   appropriateness of design and analysis (including selection and non-independence); clarity; and fit
   with JMF's scope. The **abstract** matters: reviewers are invited on it, so a clear structured
   abstract attracts good reviewers and speeds decisions.
4. **Decision pathway.** Expect **reject**, **revise and resubmit** (major or minor), or **accept**.
   Most papers that ultimately publish go through at least one R&R; treat an R&R as a real opportunity,
   not a near-rejection (decision labels and timelines: 待核实).

## Shape the paper to pass

- Make the **family-science significance** explicit and central (avoids "this isn't really about
  families" or "incremental").
- Engage the relevant literatures **across disciplines** (avoids "missed obvious work").
- Address **selection** and **non-independence** up front (the most common methodological objections).
- Clear ethics/IRB and human-subjects protections for couples, children, and families.
- Write a strong **structured abstract** — it is your audition for good reviewers.

## Anti-patterns

- Submitting an under-anonymized manuscript to a double-blind journal
- A paper where families are incidental, sent to a family-science journal
- Ignoring selection or treating dyad/family members as independent (reviewers will flag it)
- Expecting acceptance without a revision round
- A thin abstract that fails to recruit qualified reviewers

## Output format

```
【Anonymized for double-blind?】names/affiliations/acknowledgements/self-refs clean? [Y/N]
【Family-science significance】central and explicit? [Y/N]
【Literature engaged】incl. cross-discipline? [Y/N]
【Methods pre-empt】selection + non-independence addressed? [Y/N]
【Realistic outcome】reject / R&R (major or minor) / (rare) accept
【Next】jmf-submission (or jmf-rebuttal if decided)
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — reviewer guidelines, editorial review process, double-blind policy (待核实 items)