Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› jms-review-process
jms-review-process
GitHub解析JMS期刊的编辑与同行评审流程，包括 desk screening、双盲开发性评审及决策信解读。帮助用户校准投稿预期、理解审稿权重、区分修改类型并制定修订策略，强调理论贡献的重要性。
Trigger Scenarios
需要了解JMS审稿流程和周期
收到决策信需要解读结果
不确定编辑与审稿人权重
计划修订策略前
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jms-review-process -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "jms-review-process",
"description": "Use when you need to understand or set expectations for the Journal of Management Studies (JMS) editorial and peer-review process — desk screening, double-blind developmental review, and reading a decision letter. Explains the process and how to read decisions; it does not draft the response letter (jms-rebuttal)."
}
Understanding the Review Process (jms-review-process)
When to trigger
- Before submitting, to calibrate expectations about timeline, desk-reject odds, and decision types
- A decision letter arrived and you need to interpret it (R&R vs. reject; major vs. minor)
- You are unsure how much weight reviewers vs. the handling editor carry
- You want to plan a revision strategy before drafting the response (then go to
jms-rebuttal)
Editorial structure, named editors, and exact turnaround change; verify the current team and policies on the official Wiley/SAMS pages. As of
检索于 2026-06；以官网为准: JMS uses double-blind review; the editorial office is at Durham University; the General Editors/Editor-in-Chief and exact timelines are 待核实 unless quoted from an official page at submission time. The norms below are durable.
How JMS review works (durable norms)
- Submission & routing. A fully anonymised manuscript enters via ScholarOne (mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jmstudies). A General Editor (or an Associate/handling Editor) screens it and, if it passes, routes it to a handling editor in the relevant area.
- Desk decision. Manuscripts that are off-fit, that lack a clear theoretical contribution, that are out of scope, or that are not engaged with a management/organization conversation may be desk-rejected without external review. The most common desk-reject reason is "no clear contribution to theory."
- External peer review. Typically two or more reviewers in the focal conversation evaluate the theoretical contribution and the rigor of the method — held to the same bar whether the paper is quantitative or qualitative.
- Editor synthesis. The handling editor weighs the reviews, forms an independent judgment, and writes the decision letter. The editor's letter — not a vote count — drives the outcome.
- Decision. Common outcomes: reject; reject with possible resubmission as new; major revision (R&R); minor revision; (rarely) accept. A first-round acceptance is essentially unheard of.
JMS is developmental and pluralist
JMS's review culture is developmental and method-pluralist: an R&R is an invitation to improve the paper over (often) multiple rounds, and reviewers will push hardest on the theoretical contribution. For qualitative work, expect demands for a sharper model, clearer data-to-theory transparency, and a tighter contribution — not a demand to "add hypotheses." For quantitative work, expect endogeneity, CMB, and robustness pushback plus a "deepen the mechanism" demand. Treat an R&R as a serious opportunity, not a near-acceptance.
Reading the decision letter
- Find the editor's priorities first. The handling editor's letter signals which reviewer points are essential vs. optional; address the editor's framing above all.
- Distinguish fatal from fixable. If the core contribution or identification concern is fatal and unaddressable, an honest reframe (or a different paper) beats a doomed revision.
- Gauge encouragement. "We see promise" + major revision signals a real path; "does not make a sufficient theoretical contribution" signals reject.
- Count the asks by category. Map every reviewer point to: theory / method / analysis / framing / writing — this becomes the plan that feeds
jms-rebuttal.
Planning the revision
- Decide whether you can meet the theoretical-contribution demands; if not, no method fix will save the revision.
- Scope new analyses, data, or fieldwork the reviewers imply and whether they are feasible in the window.
- Identify where reviewers conflict; plan to surface the conflict for the editor rather than silently siding with one.
Checklist
- Decision type identified (R&R major/minor, reject-resubmit, reject)
- The handling editor's priorities extracted and ranked above individual reviewer asks
- Every reviewer comment categorised (theory / method / analysis / framing / writing)
- Fatal vs. fixable concerns separated honestly
- Feasibility of demanded new theory/data/analysis assessed against the deadline
- Reviewer conflicts noted for the editor's attention
Anti-patterns
- Treating an R&R as a near-acceptance and making only cosmetic changes
- Treating an R&R as a rejection and walking away from a viable path
- Counting reviewer votes instead of reading the handling editor's letter
- Responding to a qualitative-paper review as if it demanded hypotheses
- Starting the response letter before mapping and planning the revision
Output format
【Decision type】R&R(major/minor) / reject-resubmit / reject
【Editor's priorities】1… 2… 3…
【Comment map】theory:[…] method:[…] analysis:[…] framing:[…] writing:[…]
【Fatal vs. fixable】…
【New work needed】theory / data / analysis — feasible? …
【Reviewer conflicts】…
【Next step】jms-rebuttal (plan revisions, then draft response)
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:48
