| name | jmis-review-process |
| description | Use when calibrating expectations for the Journal of Management Information Systems (JMIS) editorial process — the EIC-led, email-intake, double-anonymized review by Associate Editors and expert referees, likely decision types, and timing. Sets expectations and revision posture; it does not draft the response letter (jmis-rebuttal). |
Review Process (jmis-review-process)
When to trigger
- Before submitting, to understand who decides and how long it takes at JMIS
- A decision letter arrived and you need to read its severity correctly before responding
- You are weighing JMIS against MISQ/ISR/JAIS on process and turnaround
- You want to know what a desk-reject vs. a review-and-reject signals
How JMIS review actually runs
JMIS is an Editor-in-Chief-led journal: founding and current EIC Vladimir Zwass receives submissions directly by email and steers the process. Papers are refereed in a double-anonymized process by internationally recognized expert referees and by Associate Editors on the Editorial Board. Practically, this means:
- The EIC is the first gate. A paper that is out of scope (not an IS-management/economics question), over length, or not anonymized can be returned or desk-rejected before external review. Fit is judged against JMIS's management/economics-of-IS identity, not generic IS breadth.
- AEs and referees carry the substantive review. Expect method-literate referees who will press on identification (empirical), assumptions and insight (analytical), measurement and CMB (behavioral), and utility-vs-baselines (design-science) — and on whether the contribution matters for IS management.
- Decisions typically span reject, major revision, minor revision, and (rarely on a first round) accept. A major revision is an opportunity, not a soft reject; a reject-and-resubmit is distinct from a revision and resets the clock. (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准.)
Read the decision letter for what it is asking
| Signal in the letter | What it usually means | Posture |
|---|
| "Contribution to IS is unclear / incremental" | A framing problem, possibly fatal if the question is not IS-management-shaped | Revisit jmis-contribution-framing; consider fit |
| "Identification / endogeneity" (empirical) | Reviewers doubt the causal claim | Strengthen design/analysis before reframing |
| "Construct validity / common-method bias" (behavioral) | Measurement is not trusted | Fix measurement model; re-test CMB |
| "Robustness / generalizability" | Effect believed but not yet solid | Add robustness; bound the claim |
| Desk return for length/anonymization | Process, not substance | Fix and resubmit per jmis-submission |
What the EIC-led model means for you, concretely
Because intake is the EIC's email and the EIC steers assignment, two things follow that a portal-driven journal would not surface. First, scope discipline is front-loaded: the EIC can return a paper that is not an IS-management/economics question before it ever reaches a referee, so the time you spend at jmis-topic-selection and jmis-contribution-framing is the cheapest insurance against a fast return. Second, the AE is your interlocutor on the substance: the AE synthesizes the referees and signals the editorial direction, so when you eventually respond (jmis-rebuttal) you are persuading the AE that concerns are resolved, not just answered. Read the AE letter as the decision; read the referee reports as the evidence the AE is weighing.
Match the review style to your evidence type
The substantive pressure differs by archetype, and anticipating it shortens the cycle:
| Archetype | Where referees press hardest |
|---|
| IT-value / firm econometrics | endogeneity of IT investment; whether the design supports a causal verb |
| platform / e-commerce | selection on platform data; whether the network mechanism is identified, not assumed |
| behavioral survey / experiment | construct validity, discriminant validity, common-method bias, manipulation realism |
| analytical / economic model | the assumptions, and whether the insight survives relaxing them |
| design-science / ML | utility vs. credible baselines and managerial relevance, not algorithmic novelty |
Calibrate timing and expectations
JMIS is a quarterly with a single EIC and a board of AEs; turnaround depends on referee availability, so plan for a multi-month first round and budget real time for a major revision. Exact current turnaround statistics are 待核实 — check the journal page or recent author reports rather than assuming. Treat a major-revision invitation as a genuine path to acceptance if you can answer the substantive concerns, and do not confuse it with a reject.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Reading a major revision as a polite rejection (or vice versa)
- Responding before classifying whether the core problem is fit, evidence, or process
- Assuming a fast portal-style turnaround — this is an EIC-led email process
- Treating a desk return for length/anonymization as a substantive rejection
- Quoting acceptance rates or review times as fact without a source
- Revising a paper whose core problem is fit, on sunk-cost grounds, instead of rerouting
- Treating the referee reports as the decision rather than the AE's synthesizing letter
- Underestimating how front-loaded scope discipline is in an EIC-managed intake
Decide whether to revise or reroute
Not every revision invitation is worth taking, and a clean reject sometimes signals a fit problem better solved by rerouting. Use a simple decision rule: if the binding concern is fit/contribution and the question is not really an IS-management/economics question, a revision will likely fail again — reconsider whether MISQ, ISR, JAIS, or an economics/CS venue is the true home before reinvesting. If the binding concern is evidence (identification, measurement, robustness) and you can plausibly produce the missing analysis within the revision window, a major revision is a genuine path to acceptance. If it is process (length, anonymization, scope-of-claims), fix and resubmit. Sunk-cost reasoning — "we already emailed it to JMIS" — is not a reason to revise a paper whose question belongs elsewhere.
Set author expectations before the wait
Tell coauthors what an EIC-led quarterly looks like so silence is not misread: a multi-month first round is normal, a major revision is the most common positive first-round outcome at a top journal, and the AE's letter — not the harshest referee — sets the agenda for the revision. Decide up front who will own which class of revision (identification, measurement, exhibits, prose) so that when the letter arrives the team moves into jmis-rebuttal without relitigating roles.
Output format
【Decision type】desk-return / reject / reject-resubmit / major / minor / accept
【Binding concern】fit / identification / measurement / robustness / process
【Fatal vs. fixable】[...]
【Timing expectation】realistic horizon (statistics 待核实)
【Next step】jmis-rebuttal (if revision) or revisit earlier skill (if framing/fit)
