Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› jm-review-process
jm-review-process
GitHub解析《Journal of Marketing》审稿流程，涵盖双盲机制、编辑权限、实质性评估标准及决策信解读。用于投稿前预期管理、决策信分析及理解修改要求，不代写回复。
Trigger Scenarios
投稿前了解JM审稿预期与规则
收到决策信后需要解读含义与重点
不确定JM内部决策结构与评审侧重点
询问条件录用所需的复制数据包要求
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jm-review-process -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "jm-review-process",
"description": "Use when understanding how Journal of Marketing (JM) review and decisions work — the double-anonymized process, the Coeditor structure, the substantive-and-relevance evaluation bar, and how to read a decision letter. Explains the process and reads the letter; it does not draft the response (jm-rebuttal)."
}
Review Process (jm-review-process)
When to trigger
- Before submitting, to set realistic expectations about JM review
- A decision letter arrived and you need to interpret it before responding
- You are unsure who decides at JM and what reviewers are told to weigh
- You want to know what "conditional acceptance" triggers (replication packet)
How JM review works
- Double-anonymized: identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. Keep all rounds anonymized; never reveal yourself in responses or revised files.
- Decision authority: the handling Editor is the final decision authority. Under EiC Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp (UNC; term began July 1, 2025, three-year term — verified 2026-06-22), manuscripts are handled by one of four Coeditors — Marc Fischer (Cologne), Kelly L. Haws (Vanderbilt), Maura L. Scott (Arizona State), Rebecca J. Slotegraaf (Indiana). Your keyword/area choices influence routing. Re-verify the live roster before naming a Coeditor.
- What reviewers weigh: JM's gatekeeping criterion is substantive impact — does the paper offer compelling new insight into an important real-world marketing question, with managerial/policy/societal relevance? Reviewers also screen for scope: general-management papers, methods-for-their-own-sake papers, and incremental/new-context replications are out of scope. Expect probes on identification, exact-statistic reporting, and whether the magnitude matters.
- Integrity: manuscripts are screened with iThenticate; no concurrent submission.
Likely decisions
| Decision | What it means |
|---|---|
| Desk reject | Out of scope, not substantive enough, or relevance absent |
| Reject (after review) | Substantive contribution or identification judged insufficient |
| Major revision (R&R) | Promising substantive core; significant work required |
| Minor revision | Substantively sound; targeted fixes |
| Conditional acceptance | Triggers the JM Dataverse replication packet + Data Availability Statement |
First-round acceptances are essentially unheard of; a well-run R&R is the realistic best case.
Reading the decision letter
- Read the Coeditor letter first — it states the path to acceptance and which concerns are decisive ("must address") versus secondary.
- Cluster reviewer comments by theme: substantive contribution, identification/analysis, managerial relevance, positioning, exposition.
- Flag any comment touching the substantive-novelty or relevance bar as top priority — these are JM's gatekeeping criteria.
- Note transparency expectations early: if you are near conditional acceptance, prepare the JM Dataverse packet (data + code, or qualitative materials) and confirm preregistration links/attestation.
- Distinguish requests that need new data/analysis from those needing reframing — they have very different timelines.
At conditional acceptance
Deposit the replication packet to JM's Dataverse (raw data, analysis programs/scripts; qualitative materials for qualitative work), accessible to the processing Editor but not reviewers, and ensure the Data Availability Statement is on the title page. Some conditionally accepted JM manuscripts may go through a verification step: the Coeditor may assign a Data Editor to review the Dataverse materials and submit a ScholarOne report.
Checklist
- Coeditor letter parsed: decisive vs. secondary concerns identified
- Reviewer comments clustered by theme
- Substantive-novelty and relevance comments flagged as top priority
- New-data vs. reframing requests separated (timeline planning)
- Conditional-acceptance transparency steps anticipated (JM Dataverse + DAS + possible verification)
Anti-patterns
- Treating all reviewer comments as equal weight, ignoring the Coeditor's priorities.
- De-anonymizing yourself in a response or revised file.
- Reading a major R&R as a near-accept and doing superficial edits.
- Deferring replication-packet prep until after conditional acceptance scrambles the timeline.
Output format
【Decision】desk reject / reject / major R&R / minor / conditional accept
【Coeditor priorities】must-address: [...]; secondary: [...]
【Comment clusters】substantive / identification / relevance / positioning / exposition
【Gatekeeper flags】novelty + relevance comments: [...]
【New data vs. reframing】[...]
【Transparency next】JM Dataverse + DAS readiness: [...]
【Next step】jm-rebuttal
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:49
