Jmr Review Process

Name: Jmr Review Process
Author: brycewang-stanford

ASecurity

Use when understanding how the Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) review process works — initial editorial evaluation and possible desk rejection, double-anonymized review, the EIC-plus-Coeditor domain-routing model, the requirement of two independent reviews to reach a Revise/Accept decision, and how to read a JMR decision letter. Sets expectations; jmr-rebuttal drafts the response.

1,052 stars

0 votes

0 copies

0 views

Added 6/5/2026

ai-agentsgo

Security Analysis

A100/100

Scanned 6/5/2026

Install to Claude Code

$npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jmr-review-process --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Jmr Review Process?

Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Jmr Review Process

[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/brycewang-stanford-jmr-review-process/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-jmr-review-process)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.

Download with Pro

Files

SKILL.md

---
name: jmr-review-process
description: Use when understanding how the Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) review process works — initial editorial evaluation and possible desk rejection, double-anonymized review, the EIC-plus-Coeditor domain-routing model, the requirement of two independent reviews to reach a Revise/Accept decision, and how to read a JMR decision letter. Sets expectations; jmr-rebuttal drafts the response.
---

# Understanding the JMR Review Process (jmr-review-process)

## When to trigger

- Before submitting, to set realistic expectations for timing and decisions
- After a decision letter, to interpret what the editor and reviewers are signaling
- You are unsure how JMR routes papers or how many reviews are required
- You want to understand the difference between a desk reject and a post-review reject

## How JMR routing works

JMR uses an **EIC + Coeditor** model. A single **Editor-in-Chief** oversees a panel of **Coeditors** (currently four; the incoming 2026–2029 team has five) who handle manuscripts by **methodological/substantive domain**, alongside **Associate Editors** and an **Editorial Review Board**. This is analogous to INFORMS-style departmental routing, but organized around methodological/substantive domains rather than fixed departments. Practical implication: your domain keywords and article type at submission influence which Coeditor/AE your paper reaches, so choose them to land with an expert in your area. (The by-domain routing chart itself is not published — 待核实 — so this is inferred from the masthead structure.)

> Transition note: Rebecca Hamilton (Georgetown) is EIC of record through 30 June 2026; Raphael Thomadsen's incoming team (WashU) has handled **new** submissions since 1 April 2026. Authors submitting now are effectively reviewed by the incoming team.

## The stages

1. **Initial editorial evaluation** — the editor screens for scope, fit, and conformance. Out-of-scope or non-conforming papers can be **desk-rejected without peer review** (e.g., wrong venue, exceeds 50 pages, missing exact-statistics/transparency requirements).
2. **Double-anonymized peer review** — identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from both parties.
3. **Decision** — to reach a **Revise or Accept** decision, the manuscript requires **two independent reviews**. The editor has final authority and integrates the reviews with their own read.

## Read the decision letter by genre

- **Rigor-bar objections** — "identification is not convincing," "the manipulation is confounded," "report effect sizes / exact p-values," "the instrument is weak." These are often addressable with new analyses, studies, or Web Appendix material.
- **Substance-bar objections** — "the contribution is incremental," "what do we learn?" These are harder; they may require reframing (`jmr-contribution-framing`) or additional studies, not just robustness.
- **Both bars** — JMR's dual standard means a paper can be methodologically clean yet rejected for thin contribution, or interesting yet rejected for weak identification. Diagnose which bar the letter is really about.

## Set expectations

- First-round **accepts are essentially unheard of**; a Revise (R&R) is a strong outcome.
- Expect multiple rounds; reviewers are domain experts who will probe identification, process evidence, and exact-statistics reporting.
- A desk reject is usually about fit or conformance, not a verdict on quality — re-target or fix conformance.

## Anti-patterns

- Treating a desk reject as a content verdict (it is usually scope/fit/format).
- Reading only the reviews and ignoring the **editor's** framing of which concerns are pivotal.
- Assuming one enthusiastic review is enough — two independent reviews gate Revise/Accept.

## Output format

```text
[Target] JMR
[Decision] desk-reject / reject / R&R / minor
[Routing] likely Coeditor/AE domain
[Pivotal bar] rigor / substance / both
[Editor's framing] key asks ...
[Tractability] addressable via analysis/studies vs. reframe
[Next skill] jmr-rebuttal (if R&R)
```

## Resources

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md)
- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md)

Attribution

brycewang-stanford

View source More from brycewang-stanford →

SSkills DirectorySkills Directory

Your tool, in front of Claude Code builders.

3 founder slots · $299/mo · GSC-verified traffic · sponsors can never buy grades.

See placements

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!

--- name: jmr-review-process description: Use when understanding how the Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) review process works — initial editorial evaluation and possible desk rejection, double-anonymized review, the EIC-plus-Coeditor domain-routing model, the requirement of two independent reviews to reach a Revise/Accept decision, and how to read a JMR decision letter. Sets expectations; jmr-rebuttal drafts the response. --- # Understanding the JMR Review Process (jmr-review-process) ## When to trigger - Before submitting, to set realistic expectations for timing and decisions - After a decision letter, to interpret what the editor and reviewers are signaling - You are unsure how JMR routes papers or how many reviews are required - You want to understand the difference between a desk reject and a post-review reject ## How JMR routing works JMR uses an **EIC + Coeditor** model. A single **Editor-in-Chief** oversees a panel of **Coeditors** (currently four; the incoming 2026–2029 team has five) who handle manuscripts by **methodological/substantive domain**, alongside **Associate Editors** and an **Editorial Review Board**. This is analogous to INFORMS-style departmental routing, but organized around methodological/substantive domains rather than fixed departments. Practical implication: your domain keywords and article type at submission influence which Coeditor/AE your paper reaches, so choose them to land with an expert in your area. (The by-domain routing chart itself is not published — 待核实 — so this is inferred from the masthead structure.) > Transition note: Rebecca Hamilton (Georgetown) is EIC of record through 30 June 2026; Raphael Thomadsen's incoming team (WashU) has handled **new** submissions since 1 April 2026. Authors submitting now are effectively reviewed by the incoming team. ## The stages 1. **Initial editorial evaluation** — the editor screens for scope, fit, and conformance. Out-of-scope or non-conforming papers can be **desk-rejected without peer review** (e.g., wrong venue, exceeds 50 pages, missing exact-statistics/transparency requirements). 2. **Double-anonymized peer review** — identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from both parties. 3. **Decision** — to reach a **Revise or Accept** decision, the manuscript requires **two independent reviews**. The editor has final authority and integrates the reviews with their own read. ## Read the decision letter by genre - **Rigor-bar objections** — "identification is not convincing," "the manipulation is confounded," "report effect sizes / exact p-values," "the instrument is weak." These are often addressable with new analyses, studies, or Web Appendix material. - **Substance-bar objections** — "the contribution is incremental," "what do we learn?" These are harder; they may require reframing (`jmr-contribution-framing`) or additional studies, not just robustness. - **Both bars** — JMR's dual standard means a paper can be methodologically clean yet rejected for thin contribution, or interesting yet rejected for weak identification. Diagnose which bar the letter is really about. ## Set expectations - First-round **accepts are essentially unheard of**; a Revise (R&R) is a strong outcome. - Expect multiple rounds; reviewers are domain experts who will probe identification, process evidence, and exact-statistics reporting. - A desk reject is usually about fit or conformance, not a verdict on quality — re-target or fix conformance. ## Anti-patterns - Treating a desk reject as a content verdict (it is usually scope/fit/format). - Reading only the reviews and ignoring the **editor's** framing of which concerns are pivotal. - Assuming one enthusiastic review is enough — two independent reviews gate Revise/Accept. ## Output format ```text [Target] JMR [Decision] desk-reject / reject / R&R / minor [Routing] likely Coeditor/AE domain [Pivotal bar] rigor / substance / both [Editor's framing] key asks ... [Tractability] addressable via analysis/studies vs. reframe [Next skill] jmr-rebuttal (if R&R) ``` ## Resources - [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) - [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md)