Rof Review Process

---
name: rof-review-process
description: "Use when interpreting Review of Finance desk screening, Screen Reports, double-blind review, top-three-finance-journal referee standards, two-round decision philosophy, Fast-Track timing, and sanctions for undisclosed resubmission or dual submission."
category: business-and-finance
source_repo: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
source_path: "Review-of-Finance-Skills/skills/rof-review-process/SKILL.md"
source_url: https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/blob/HEAD/Review-of-Finance-Skills/skills/rof-review-process/SKILL.md
---


# Review of Finance Review Process

Use this to plan around RoF's editorial model.

## Process model

- RoF uses double-blind anonymous review under the current OUP instructions; manuscripts must
  contain no author-identifying references (also scrub PDF metadata).
- Screen Reports from trusted referees and Associate Editors can inform desk-rejection
  decisions before full review.
- Referees are asked to apply top-three-finance-journal standards and to separate their
  comments into (1) major concerns required for publication and (2) suggestions. Read reports
  through this lens: bucket (1) is what you must satisfy.
- RoF states a two-round decision philosophy: it aims to decide by the second round and will
  likely ignore new round-two concerns not raised in round one and unrelated to your changes,
  so round one is decisive.
- Published papers identify the accepting editor and the submission and acceptance dates; the
  policy frames authors (not referees) as the owners of the paper.
- Fast-Track submissions pay a premium (EUR 900 first submission) for a 14-day decision target.
- Undisclosed resubmission of a rejected RoF paper, or simultaneous submission elsewhere,
  triggers desk rejection and a two-year submission ban. Authors are also responsible for
  searching and citing relevant work — lack of awareness is not a defense.

## Desk-screen patterns at this journal

| Pattern | Why the desk catches it |
|---|---|
| Field-journal scope: single-market detail, no general finance lesson | referees are instructed to apply top-three standards; the Screen Report saves everyone a round |
| Cap or format breach: over 60 pages, abstract over 150 words | mechanical compliance is a stated condition of submission |
| Identifiable manuscript: acknowledgements, repo links, live metadata | double-blind violation |
| Undisclosed prior RoF rejection or parallel submission | the sanctioned offense — desk rejection plus the two-year ban |
| Kitchen-sink regressions with no identification spine | the editorial culture prizes clean identification and economic magnitudes |

## Timing expectations (hedged)

- Regular track: no published decision guarantee; the refund trigger for decisions past
  120 days signals the journal's own benchmark for a slow round — plan in months, and
  confirm the current schedule against the journal's current author guidelines.
- Fast-Track: a 14-day decision target after valid payment, built for finished papers
  facing competition; confirm the current decision set and refund mechanics before paying.
- Screen Reports can close the file within weeks, with partial fee refund on the regular
  track — evidence the desk filter is genuinely used, not ornamental.

## Reading the decision letter

- Count bucket-1 items per referee, then read the editor's letter for which of them are
  binding — when referees conflict, the editor's framing wins.
- A reject-and-resubmit at a two-round journal functions like a hard R&R: the clock and
  the fee restart, and the resubmission must disclose the history (nondisclosure is the
  banned offense, not the resubmission itself).
- Treat round one as the only round in which new evidence reliably counts; build the
  response (see `rof-rebuttal`) so nothing decisive is deferred.
- Because published RoF papers name the accepting editor and the submission/acceptance
  dates, the process is unusually auditable — sample recent issues to calibrate realistic
  durations in your subfield.

## Editorial board (as of the 1 January 2026 update — re-verify)

Managing Editor Marcin Kacperczyk (Imperial College London), with Editors including Ian
Dew-Becker, Hui Chen, Laurent Fresard, Marcus Opp, Jun Pan, Jacopo Ponticelli, David Solomon,
and Margarita Tsoutsoura, plus ~29 Associate Editors. Hui Chen and Margarita Tsoutsoura became
Editors on 1 January 2026, succeeding Xavier Giroud (stepped down end of 2025); Jun Pan's term
ends June 2026. Exact AE count is 待核实 — confirm on revfin.org/editorial-board/.

## Output format

```text
[Stage] pre-screen / review / R&R / resubmission / accepted
[Decision standard] <top-three concern>
[Round-one must-fix] <issue>
[Process risk] <dual submission, disclosure, fee, anonymity, or code>
[Next move] <specific action>
```

---

**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Review-of-Finance-Skills/skills/rof-review-process/SKILL.md`