| name | orgsci-review-process |
| description | Use when you want to understand how Organization Science review and decisions work before or after submitting — the decentralized senior-editor model with strong SE autonomy, the conflict-of-interest routing cascade, double-blind submission preparation, and how to read a decision letter at this venue. |
Review Process (orgsci-review-process)
When to trigger
- You are about to submit and want to set expectations
- You received a decision letter and need to interpret who decided and why
- You are unsure how Organization Science routing differs from a departmental area-editor journal
The decentralized senior-editor model
Organization Science runs a decentralized model: Senior Editors plus an Editorial Review Board, under Editor-in-Chief Lamar Pierce (Washington University in St. Louis). Each Senior Editor has strong autonomy — an SE can independently accept, reject, or request an R&R. This differs sharply from sister journal Management Science's fixed departmental area-editor routing: here the SE decides your paper, not a department head dispatching to an area editor. Routing follows a conflict-of-interest cascade — the EIC handles deputy-editor submissions and deputy editors handle senior-editor submissions — so editors do not adjudicate their own work.
What happens to your submission
- Desk review. The EIC/SE can see the cover letter and abstract. An unconvincing contribution,
poor fit, transparency gap, or excessive length can produce a desk reject (overlong submissions
may be returned with an option to resubmit shorter).
- Peer review. If sent out, it goes to at least two reviewers; follow the submission guidelines'
double-blind preparation rules and keep the main manuscript anonymized. The cover letter is seen by
the EIC and SE but not by reviewers.
- Decision. The SE synthesizes reviews into accept / reject / R&R. First-round accepts are rare; the realistic best early outcome is a major R&R.
Reading the decision letter
- Identify the decider. The SE letter is binding; reviewer comments are inputs the SE weights — when they differ, the SE's framing governs your revision priorities.
- Find the core concern. Usually overall contribution, mechanism, or fit — not just method, given the "novelty is neither necessary nor sufficient" stance and the acceptance that causal identification is often impossible.
- Note the window. The submission guidelines ask authors to resubmit invited revisions within
6 months unless the editor grants an exception.
Anti-patterns
- Treating reviewer comments as equal to the SE's verdict and ignoring the SE's prioritization.
- Expecting area-editor routing or ignoring the 2025 data/methods transparency policy.
- Assuming a desk return is a rejection when it may be a fixable compliance or length issue.
Review-risk pass for Organization Science
Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock a level map, a mechanism paragraph, and the cover-letter contribution statement; then test whether the manuscript addresses interdisciplinary organization reviewers who ask whether the mechanism travels across levels of analysis.
- 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 AMJ for empirical management framing, ASQ for organization-theory depth, Management Science for formal/quantitative operations; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
- Submission-ready gate: before final advice, re-open
resources/official-source-map.md for
upload-week rules and name the one live-check item that could change the recommendation.
Output format
【Decider】Senior Editor (autonomous accept/reject/R&R); EIC Lamar Pierce; COI cascade routing
【Stage reached】desk return / desk reject / out for review / R&R / reject
【Core concern】overall contribution / mechanism / fit (method usually secondary)
【SE vs reviewers】whose framing governs the revision
【Window】6-month invited-revision window unless editor grants an exception
【Next step】orgsci-rebuttal
