| name | jmgmt-review-process |
| description | Use when you need to understand or set expectations for the Journal of Management (JOM) editorial and masked-review process — desk screening, the developmental R&R culture, the Review Issue track, and reading a decision letter. Explains the process; it does not draft the response letter (jmgmt-rebuttal). |
Understanding the Review Process (jmgmt-review-process)
When to trigger
- Before submitting, to calibrate expectations about timeline and decision types
- A decision letter arrived and you need to interpret it (R&R vs. reject; major vs. minor)
- You are unsure how reviewers vs. the action editor weigh in under masked review
- You are routing a review/meta-analysis and want to know how the Review Issue track works
- You want to plan a revision strategy before drafting the response (then go to
jmgmt-rebuttal)
Editorial structure, named editors, and timelines change. Verify the current team and turnaround on the SAGE JOM page; the norms below are durable. As of 2026-06: JOM uses masked (double-blind) review with an anonymized data transparency table, is developmental and multi-round, and the Editor-in-Chief is Cynthia E. Devers (Virginia Tech) (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
How JOM review works (durable norms)
- Submission & routing. The Editor-in-Chief or a deputy/associate editor screens the masked manuscript and routes it to an action editor in the relevant domain (OB, HR, strategy, entrepreneurship, methods). Submission is via SAGE/ScholarOne, fully anonymized.
- Desk decision. Off-fit, atheoretical, or fatally under-designed papers — and reviews/meta-analyses with no organizing framework or no theoretical advance — may be desk-rejected without external review. A clear theoretical contribution and an appropriate design are what get a paper past the desk.
- External peer review. Typically multiple (often two to three) masked reviewers from the focal conversation evaluate the theoretical contribution, design rigor, and analysis. Because JOM covers research methods, expect a methodologically exacting reading (CMB, endogeneity, measurement, multilevel modeling, meta-analytic corrections).
- Action editor synthesis. The action editor weighs the reviews, forms an independent judgment, and writes the decision letter. The editor's letter — not a vote count — drives the outcome.
- Decision. Common outcomes: reject; reject with encouragement to resubmit as new; major revision (R&R); minor revision; (rarely) accept. A first-round acceptance is essentially unheard of.
The Review Issue track
JOM runs biannual Review Issues (January and July) of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. These follow the same masked, developmental review, but referees judge the organizing framework, search/coding rigor, and the forward research agenda rather than new primary data. Invited reviews still go through peer review. If you are aiming for a Review Issue, calibrate to that bar, not the empirical-paper bar.
JOM is developmental and multi-round
JOM's culture is developmental: an R&R is an invitation to improve the paper over (often) multiple rounds. Reviewers push hard on the theoretical contribution and the method — expect requests to deepen theory, add a study or a wave, strengthen identification, address common-method/endogeneity concerns, or add artifact corrections to a meta-analysis. Treat an R&R as a serious opportunity, not a near-acceptance and not a rejection.
Reading the decision letter
- Find the action editor's priorities first. The letter signals which reviewer points are essential vs. optional; address the editor's framing above all.
- Distinguish fatal from fixable. If a core identification or theory concern is fatal and unaddressable, an honest reframe (or a different paper) beats a doomed revision.
- Gauge encouragement. "We see promise" + major revision signals a real path; language about poor developmental fit signals reject.
- Map every reviewer point to theory / method / analysis / framing / writing — this becomes the revision plan that feeds
jmgmt-rebuttal.
Worked example (illustrative)
An entrepreneurship paper returns as a major revision. The action editor's letter foregrounds two asks: deepen the theory beyond a single "effectuation" label, and address an endogenous-founder-experience concern. Reviewer 1 also wants a new control; Reviewer 2 questions a scale's discriminant validity. Reading it correctly: the editor's two asks are essential (theory depth + endogeneity), the scale concern is real but bounded (a fuller CFA/HTMT will satisfy it), and the new control is optional polish. The revision plan therefore front-loads a sharper mechanism and an identification strategy, treats the CFA as a quick win, and adds the control with a one-line justification — rather than spreading effort evenly across all four comments. That prioritization is exactly what a developmental editor rewards.
Calibrating expectations before you submit
- Assume multiple rounds: a strong paper still typically sees a major and then a minor R&R before acceptance.
- Expect a methods-heavy read; pre-empt the standard pushbacks (CMB, endogeneity, measurement, levels) in the manuscript so the first round is about theory, not hygiene.
- For the Review track, budget time for the framework and agenda to be challenged; reviewers treat an integrative contribution as seriously as a new dataset.
How much weight reviewers vs. the action editor carry
Under JOM's masked, developmental model the action editor is decisive. Reviewers advise; the editor integrates, forms an independent view, and may overrule a harsh review or temper an enthusiastic one. Practically: if two reviewers are positive but the editor's letter is cautious, believe the editor; if a reviewer is hostile but the editor signals a path, the path is real. Read the editor's letter twice before reading the reviews, and let it set the priority order for the revision.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Treating an R&R as a near-acceptance and making only cosmetic changes
- Treating an R&R as a rejection and walking away from a viable path
- Counting reviewer votes instead of reading the action editor's letter
- Ignoring the editor's stated priorities while over-investing in a minor reviewer point
- Submitting a review/meta-analysis to the Review track without the framework-and-agenda the editors expect
Output format
【Decision type】R&R(major/minor) / reject-resubmit / reject
【Track】empirical / Review Issue
【Editor's priorities】1... 2... 3...
【Comment map】theory:[...] method:[...] analysis:[...] framing:[...] writing:[...]
【Fatal vs. fixable】...
【New work needed】theory / data / analysis — feasible? ...
【Reviewer conflicts】...
【Next step】jmgmt-rebuttal
