Orgsci Review Process

---
name: orgsci-review-process
description: Use when you want to understand how Organization Science review and decisions work before or after submitting — the decentralized senior-editor model with strong SE autonomy, the conflict-of-interest routing cascade, double-anonymous reviewing, and how to read a decision letter at this venue.
---

# Review Process (orgsci-review-process)

## When to trigger

- You are about to submit and want to set expectations
- You received a decision letter and need to interpret who decided and why
- You are unsure how Organization Science routing differs from a departmental area-editor journal

## The decentralized senior-editor model

Organization Science runs a **decentralized model**: **Senior Editors** plus an **Editorial Review Board**, under Editor-in-Chief **Lamar Pierce** (Washington University in St. Louis). Each **Senior Editor has strong autonomy** — an SE can independently **accept, reject, or request an R&R**. This differs sharply from sister journal Management Science's fixed **departmental area-editor** routing: here the SE decides your paper, not a department head dispatching to an area editor. Routing follows a **conflict-of-interest cascade** — the **EIC handles deputy-editor submissions** and **deputy editors handle senior-editor submissions** — so editors do not adjudicate their own work.

## What happens to your submission

- **Desk review.** The EIC/SE read the **<500-word contribution statement and the abstract** first. A missing statement gets the paper **returned before editorial review**; an unconvincing contribution, poor fit, or excessive length can produce a **desk reject** (overlong submissions may be returned with an option to resubmit shorter).
- **Peer review.** If sent out, it goes to **at least two reviewers** under **double-anonymous** review; the cover letter is seen by the EIC and SE but **not** by reviewers.
- **Decision.** The SE synthesizes reviews into accept / reject / R&R. First-round accepts are rare; the realistic best early outcome is a **major R&R**.

## Reading the decision letter

- **Identify the decider.** The SE letter is binding; reviewer comments are inputs the SE weights — when they differ, the SE's framing governs your revision priorities.
- **Find the core concern.** Usually **overall contribution**, mechanism, or fit — not just method, given the "novelty is neither necessary nor sufficient" stance and the acceptance that causal identification is often impossible.
- **Note the window.** Resubmit an R&R promptly (a ~one-year window is reported but **待核实** — confirm in your letter).

## Anti-patterns

- Treating reviewer comments as equal to the SE's verdict and ignoring the SE's prioritization.
- Expecting area-editor routing or a code-and-data deposit mandate (those are Management Science).
- Assuming a desk return is a rejection when it may be a fixable missing contribution statement.

## Output format

```
【Decider】Senior Editor (autonomous accept/reject/R&R); EIC Lamar Pierce; COI cascade routing
【Stage reached】desk return / desk reject / out for review / R&R / reject
【Core concern】overall contribution / mechanism / fit (method usually secondary)
【SE vs reviewers】whose framing governs the revision
【Window】resubmission timeframe (confirm; ~1 year 待核实)
【Next step】orgsci-rebuttal
```