| 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):
- 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 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.
- 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.)
- 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.
Desk-reject risk table (calibrate before you submit)
The editor screen is the first gate. Estimate your risk against the patterns that bounce IO manuscripts early.
| Manuscript trait | Screen risk | Why the Board Editor reacts |
|---|
| First-order IO question on page 1 | Low | Matches the journal's narrow IO scope |
| Method named, matched to question | Low | Signals a credible, refereeable design |
| General-micro / macro framing | High | Wrong journal; not an IO advance |
| Over-length, sprawling exposition | Medium-High | Page caps are hard; signals undisciplined writing |
| Welfare/policy lesson buried in conclusion | Medium | IO contribution not legible at the screen |
| Thin or contested identification | Medium | A referee will catch it; Editor may pre-empt |
Worked vignette: anticipating the screen on an auction paper
Suppose you submit a structural auction article estimating bidder valuations in timber auctions and inferring the revenue effect of a reserve-price change. Reading as the screening Editor would:
- IO hook: the opening must name the market (timber procurement auctions), the firms (bidders, the seller), and the policy question (optimal reserve price) — not lead with the estimation method.
- Method match: a first-price-auction model mapping bids to the value distribution through equilibrium FOCs, with the information paradigm stated (private vs common values) — a credible, refereeable design.
- Stake on page 1: the headline revenue/welfare consequence of the reserve change stated up front, not deferred.
- Cover letter: three sentences naming the market, the structural method, the headline result (illustratively, an optimal reserve raises seller revenue ~3%), and the auction-design lesson.
Framed this way, desk-reject risk is low; the same content with a methods-first opening and a buried policy lesson invites an early bounce.
Referee and editor expectations once past the screen
- The two anonymous referees apply IO field norms: they probe identification of structural primitives, conduct assumptions, and counterfactual credibility.
- The handling Editor synthesizes the reports and weights them — the decision letter, not any single report, is the binding document for any revision.
- Anonymity of referees to authors is confirmed; whether author identity is concealed from referees is unconfirmed — confirm against the journal's current author guidelines rather than assuming double-blind.
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)
