Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› jaar-review-process
jaar-review-process
GitHub解析JAAR期刊审稿流程，涵盖编辑初审、双盲评审及高拒稿率。用于投稿前压力测试、解读决定信及设定预期，提供格式检查与避坑指南，不直接联系编辑。
Trigger Scenarios
投稿前评估稿件是否符合JAAR标准
解读收到的决定信或询问审稿周期
咨询是否可投稿书评
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jaar-review-process -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "jaar-review-process",
"description": "Use to understand how the Journal of the American Academy of Religion (JAAR) evaluates a manuscript — editor pre-screening for broad significance, double-blind review, a roughly 90% rejection rate, a months-long timeline, and a commissioned-only book-review section. Sets expectations and shapes the article to survive; it does not contact editors."
}
Review Process (jaar-review-process)
JAAR is highly selective (about 90% of submissions are rejected) and screens hard before peer review. Knowing the gates lets you avoid the common early deaths and set realistic expectations.
When to trigger
- Before submitting, to stress-test against JAAR's gates
- Interpreting a decision letter and timeline
- Wondering whether to propose a book review (don't submit unsolicited — see below)
How JAAR review works
- Editorial pre-screening (the first gate). The editorial office reads every submission and decides whether to send it out. Two common pre-review outcomes: returned to reframe for broad significance (if it reads as subfield-only), or advised that another journal suits it better.
- Double-blind (double-anonymous) review. Reviewers do not know authors and authors do not know
reviewers; you submit an anonymized main document plus a separate title page (see
jaar-submission). - Selectivity. ~90% rejection; roughly eight articles per issue / ~32 per year. Strong, field-significant, thesis-driven, method-conscious work clears; description does not.
- Timeline. Plan for a months-long process — up to six months to a final decision (an average time to first decision around 106 days was reported as of 2022; 待核实 current figures).
- Decisions. Reject, revise and resubmit, or accept; expect substantive revision for promising work
(handled in
jaar-revision-and-response).
Book reviews (a separate, commissioned track)
- JAAR's book reviews are commissioned through the Book Review Editor; it does not accept unsolicited reviews and does not publish reviews from graduate students. Do not plan a review submission as an entry point.
Shape the article to pass
- Make the broad, field-level significance unmistakable in the introduction (avoid the reframing bounce).
- Ensure the essay "has a point" — a contestable thesis, not a survey.
- Show methodological self-awareness and reflexivity; keep it non-confessional.
- Anonymize thoroughly so it can go straight to review.
Anti-patterns
- A subfield-only framing that triggers the pre-review reframing return
- A descriptive piece with no thesis
- Confessional/advocacy tone that reads as non-scholarly
- Submitting an unsolicited book review (not accepted)
- Expecting a fast decision (the process takes months)
Output format
【Pre-screen risk】broad significance obvious? reframing needed? [Y/N]
【Has a point?】contestable thesis present? [Y/N]
【Method/reflexivity】evident and non-confessional? [Y/N]
【Anonymized】ready for double-blind? [Y/N]
【Expectation】reject / R&R / accept; months-long timeline
【Next】jaar-submission (or jaar-revision-and-response if decided)
The two-gate map of a JAAR decision
A manuscript at the AAR's flagship Oxford University Press journal passes through gates in order; most deaths happen at Gate 1, before a referee ever sees the file.
| Gate | Who decides | Common failure |
|---|---|---|
| 1 — Editorial pre-screen | Editorial office | "Reframe for broad significance" or "another journal suits this" |
| 2 — Double-anonymous review | 2+ referees across methods | Split reports; under-theorized; confessional tone |
| 3 — Editor adjudication | Editor | R&R conditions misread as optional |
The takeaway: optimize for Gate 1 first. A brilliant essay that reads as subfield-only never reaches a referee.
Worked vignette: predicting the bounce before you submit
An author has "Spirit Possession Among Diaspora Practitioners in Toronto" — a careful ethnography. Stress-testing it against the gates:
- Gate 1 read. The intro opens with community-specific detail and names no stakes beyond the community. Prediction: pre-review return to reframe. The fix is to lead with what the case teaches the field — how it pressures the category "possession" or the insider/outsider problem in fieldwork — before the reader meets Toronto.
- Gate 2 read. Even reframed, a theorist-referee may call the reflexivity thin and an
area-referee may want more on liturgical sources; the author pre-empts both via
jaar-theory-and-methodandjaar-sources-and-evidence. - Expectation set. Plan for a months-long wait and, at best for promising work, an R&R rather
than an outright accept; route to
jaar-revision-and-responsewhen the letter arrives.
Referee-stance patterns and what they signal
- "Significant question, execution uneven" → likely R&R; treat the report as a to-do list.
- "Solid but subfield-bound" → a Gate-1 problem surfacing late; rebuild the field-level stakes.
- "Confessional / advocacy register" → restore analytic distance.
Hedged calibration: a frequently cited figure is roughly 90% rejection with about eight articles per issue, and one report gave an average time to first decision near 106 days as of 2022. Treat all such numbers as approximate and period-specific — confirm against the journal's current submission guidelines, since selectivity and timelines move with editorship and submission volume. Book reviews remain a separate commissioned track and are not an entry point.
Supplementary resources
../../resources/official-source-map.md— pre-screening, double-blind, ~90% rejection, timeline, commissioned reviews
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:59
