geb-review-process

name	geb-review-process
description	Use when you need to understand how Games and Economic Behavior (GEB) actually evaluates a paper — the Editor-in-Charge model, anonymous Advisory Editors and referees, desk-reject and acceptance odds — so you can target the right audience and set expectations. Explains the process; it does not draft content.

Review Process (geb-review-process)

When to trigger

• You want to know who actually decides on your GEB paper before submitting
• You are calibrating expectations on desk-reject odds and timelines
• You are writing a cover letter and need to know who reads it first
• A decision arrived and you want to interpret the roles behind it

The GEB Editor-in-Charge model (distinctive)

GEB's process is unusually transparent about who handles your paper while keeping evaluators anonymous:

• The chief editor (Hervé Moulin since 2021; 待核实 for the current masthead) assigns each submission to one of seven Editors, who becomes the publicly known "Editor in Charge" with final decision authority on your paper. You can see who holds your paper — unusual among journals.
• The Editor in Charge typically routes the paper to an anonymous Advisory Editor (GEB has roughly 45 advisory editors; 待核实). The Advisory Editor selects referees and recommends a decision.
• Referees and Advisory Editors are anonymous to authors; the Editor in Charge is not. This is best described as a single-anonymized model (authors known to evaluators; evaluators anonymous to authors) — the exact phrase is 待核实 against the official page.
• GEB is an official journal of the Game Theory Society (Elsevier), so every layer is staffed by game-theory specialists.

The numbers (set expectations)

• ~800 submissions per year handled by seven Editors plus ~45 Advisory Editors (待核实).
• About one-third of submissions are desk-rejected — the Editor in Charge will desk-reject papers judged to have no chance of meeting the publication criterion, before refereeing.
• Roughly 15% of submitted papers are ultimately published.
• Implication: the first page and abstract must convince a specialist Editor fast; clearing the desk screen is a distinct hurdle from passing referees.

How to use this when submitting

• Write for the Editor in Charge first. A game theorist who must see the advance quickly (see geb-contribution-framing, geb-writing-style).
• Help routing. A precise contribution and clear sub-field signal which Editor/Advisory Editor fits.
• Stay neutral on identity. Referees and Advisory Editors are anonymous; do not speculate about or address them by name.
• Expect specialist scrutiny. Nearest-prior-work authors may referee; position honestly (see geb-literature-positioning).

Anti-patterns

• Treating GEB like a double-blind general journal (the Editor in Charge is known; the model is single-anonymized — 待核实)
• Assuming a fast accept; with ~one-third desk-rejected and ~15% published, the screen is hard
• A vague intro that gives the Editor in Charge no fast reason to send it out
• Naming or guessing referees/Advisory Editors in the manuscript

Review-risk pass for Games and Economic Behavior

Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the primitives, equilibrium concept, comparative statics, and proof or experiment boundary; then test whether the manuscript addresses game theorists who ask what the model teaches beyond a clever example.

• Primary move: Turn likely reviewer objections into a ledger with response evidence, manuscript location, and the decision-maker who must be convinced first.
• Decision ledger: return claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
• Neighbor test: compare against JET for theory abstraction, Theoretical Economics for compact theory contribution, Experimental Economics for experiment-first designs; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
• Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.

Output format

【Editor in Charge】one of seven Editors, publicly known, final authority
【Advisory Editor】anonymous; selects referees + recommends (待核实 count ~45)
【Referees】anonymous; specialists; possibly nearest-prior-work authors
【Model】single-anonymized (待核实 exact phrasing)
【Odds】~1/3 desk-rejected; ~15% published
【Action】sharpen page 1 for the Editor in Charge → geb-submission