asq-review-process

name	asq-review-process
description	Use when understanding and navigating Administrative Science Quarterly's (ASQ) developmental, multi-round review process — decision types, reviewer/editor roles, and what each stage expects. Explains the process; it does not draft the response letter (see asq-rebuttal).

Review Process Navigation (asq-review-process)

When to trigger

• You are about to submit and want to set expectations for the review
• A decision letter arrived and you need to interpret it before responding
• You are unsure how ASQ's developmental review differs from a desk-reject-heavy journal
• You need to decide whether an invitation to revise is worth pursuing

How ASQ review works (durable norms)

ASQ is known for a developmental, craft-focused, double-blind review process. Editors and reviewers typically engage deeply with the idea and aim to help promising papers become their best version. The editorship passed from Christine Beckman and András Tilcsik to Beth Bechky (UC Davis; term began July 1, 2025), and recent editorial communications have foregrounded curation — shaping a smaller set of enduring papers rather than maximizing throughput. The three questions editors say they ask of any manuscript: does it (1) advance understanding of organizing (teams, enterprises, markets), (2) develop a new theoretical account or findings that challenge prior understanding, and (3) address a significant, challenging problem of management? Expect:

• No submission fee (ASQ has no mandatory submission or publication charge), but selectivity is severe: reported acceptance is around 8% (third-party trackers, not an official figure — verify).
• Editorial screening for fit and contribution before papers go out to review; thin-theory, off-scope, or excessively long manuscripts are returned/unsubmitted without full review.
• Multiple expert reviewers plus a handling editor who synthesizes and adds editorial direction.
• Multiple rounds. A path to acceptance often runs through two or more revision rounds; this is normal, not a bad sign.
• Developmental tone. Reviews can be long and demanding precisely because reviewers take the idea seriously — read them as collaboration, not gatekeeping.

Note that qualitative manuscripts are reviewed by reviewers fluent in inductive standards, not forced through a variance-theory lens. A previously rejected paper may not be resubmitted, even substantially revised.

Decision types (typical)

• Reject — usually on fit, insufficient contribution, or a fatal design flaw. Read for whether the core idea is salvageable elsewhere.
• Reject with encouragement to resubmit as new — the idea has promise but needs fundamental rework; not a continuation of the same file.
• Revise & Resubmit (R&R) — the editor sees a viable path; this is a real opportunity. High-, medium-, or low-risk framing signals how far you are.
• Conditional acceptance / Accept — remaining changes are limited.

Reading the decision letter

1. Start with the editor's letter, not the reviews — it tells you which points are binding and how to prioritize.
2. Identify the deal-breakers vs. the nice-to-haves; editors usually flag the essentials.
3. Look for the theoretical ask. At ASQ the central request is often "deepen/sharpen the contribution," not just "add a robustness check."
4. Detect reviewer disagreement and note where the editor has adjudicated.
5. Estimate feasibility honestly before committing to the revision.

What each round expects

• Round 1 → R&R: address the theoretical core and the biggest design concerns; show the contribution more clearly.
• Round 2: demonstrate that you took the development seriously; reviewers check whether the idea matured, not just whether boxes were ticked.
• Later rounds: convergence — polish, craft, and closing remaining gaps.

Deciding whether to revise

• Revise if the editor signals a viable path and the core idea survives the critique intact.
• Reconsider the venue if the required changes would gut the contribution or if reviewers reject the premise (not just the execution).

Checklist

• Editor's letter read first; binding points identified
• Deal-breakers separated from optional suggestions
• The central theoretical ask is identified
• Reviewer disagreements and editor adjudications noted
• Feasibility of a credible revision assessed honestly
• Decision made: revise (path viable) vs. redirect (premise rejected)

Anti-patterns

• Treating a demanding developmental review as hostile and responding defensively
• Reading the reviews before the editor's letter and mis-prioritizing
• Treating an R&R as acceptance, or a high-risk R&R as a guarantee
• Ignoring the theoretical ask and only doing the mechanical/robustness fixes
• Committing to a revision that would destroy the contribution to satisfy one reviewer

Output format

【Decision type】reject / resubmit-as-new / R&R (risk level) / conditional
【Editor's core ask】theoretical / design / craft
【Deal-breakers】[...]
【Reviewer disagreements】[...] + editor's steer
【Go / no-go】revise or redirect + rationale
【Next step】asq-rebuttal (if revising)