Rje Review Process

---
name: rje-review-process
description: Use to understand and plan around The RAND Journal of Economics (RJE) review pipeline — the upfront editor screen (possible desk reject), peer review by two anonymous referees, and a final read by the handling Editor. Sets expectations and shapes a submission that clears the first screen.
---

# Review Process (rje-review-process)

## When to trigger

- You want to know what happens after you press submit on Wiley Research Exchange
- You are deciding how to pitch the cover letter and front-load the contribution
- You are gauging desk-reject risk before paying the submission fee

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

RJE uses an **editor-screened, then two-anonymous-referee** model (source: rje.org/submissions.html):

1. **Editor screen.** Each manuscript is first assigned to an Editor on the Board of Editors who **quickly reviews it and may desk-reject** before any refereeing. The current **Editor-in-Chief is Craig A. Bond (RAND)**; handling Editors include IO specialists such as Gary Biglaiser, Ying Fan, Alessandro Gavazza, Jean-François Houde, Julian Wright, and Jidong Zhou. Because the front screen is explicit and fast, the **first page of the article and the cover letter must make the IO contribution legible immediately**.
2. **Two anonymous referees.** Manuscripts that survive the screen go to **two referees who are anonymous to authors**. (Whether author identity is concealed from referees — single vs double blind — is **待核实**; do not assume double-blind.)
3. **Handling Editor decision.** The handling Editor reads the reports and the article and issues the decision (reject / R&R / rare accept).

## What clears the screen at the IO flagship

- A **first-order industrial-organization question** stated in the opening paragraph (market structure, competition/antitrust, regulation, firm strategy, the economics of organizations) — not a general-micro or macro question.
- A **credible method matched to the question**: a well-specified structural model (demand/supply, entry, auctions) or a clean reduced-form design off a policy/merger shock.
- **Respect for the hard page caps** (40/50 pp) — an overlong submission signals undisciplined exposition to a screening Editor.
- A cover letter that names the market, the method, and the **headline result and welfare/policy lesson** in a few sentences.

## Anti-patterns

- Treating RJE like a general-interest journal and burying the IO hook
- Assuming a slow, multi-reviewer process — RJE leans on a **fast editor screen + two referees**
- Asserting the review is double-blind and writing the article around that (待核实)
- A defensive, sprawling cover letter the screening Editor cannot skim

## Output format

```
【Stage model】editor screen → 2 anonymous referees → handling Editor
【Desk-reject risk】high / medium / low + why
【IO hook on page 1?】[Y/N]
【Cover letter】names market + method + headline + policy lesson? [Y/N]
【Next step】rje-submission (preflight) or rje-contribution-framing (sharpen hook)
```