Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› mksc-review-process
mksc-review-process
GitHub解析营销科学期刊(MKSC)的双盲审稿流程，涵盖编辑路由、初审标准及评审维度。协助作者解读决定信（拒稿/修改重投），识别核心问题，并指导后续策略或转投其他期刊。
Trigger Scenarios
询问投稿后的审稿标准和流程
收到决定信需要解读意见
不确定MKSC与单盲期刊的审稿差异
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill mksc-review-process -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "mksc-review-process",
"description": "Use when understanding how Marketing Science evaluates a manuscript — the double-anonymous Senior-Editor \/ Associate-Editor routing, what the first-pass and review look for, and how to read a decision letter. Explains the process; it does not draft the revision response (mksc-rebuttal)."
}
Review Process (mksc-review-process)
When to trigger
- You want to know what happens after you submit, and on what criteria
- You received a decision letter and need to interpret it before responding
- You are unsure how MKSC review differs from single-blind economics/marketing outlets
How the process works
- Editorial structure. The Editor-in-Chief (Puneet Manchanda, Michigan Ross; term Jan 1 2025–Dec 31 2027, renewable through 2030 — verified 2026-06-22) oversees a set of Senior Editors who handle assigned papers, working with Associate Editors — a Senior-Editor/Associate-Editor routing model, not Management Science's standing departmental Area Editors. Verify the current board on the editorial-board page before relying on specific names.
- Double-anonymous review. Regular submissions are reviewed double-anonymous per the INFORMS-wide mandate; reviewers do not see author identities, and the manuscript must stay blinded. The cover letter is seen by the Editor/AE but not reviewers. (Practice/Science-to-Practice tracks are single-blind.)
- First pass. The handling team screens for readability and whether the paper makes a significant, original contribution on an important topic using a credible model. Papers that are model-free, off-topic, or unreadable can be returned early.
What reviewers weigh
- Importance and fit — is the marketing question important, and is it answered through a model (the MKSC core)?
- Model and identification — are the assumptions defensible, the parameters credibly identified, the estimator appropriate?
- Fit and counterfactuals — does the model fit, and is the counterfactual/policy result valid and well-quantified?
- Originality / self-overlap — is the contribution genuinely new relative to prior work, including the authors' own?
- Transparency — can the work be reproduced (the Replication and Disclosure Policy looms on acceptance)?
Reading the decision letter
- Reject — usually a fit, importance, or identification problem the team sees as unfixable; weigh whether a different venue (JCR/JMR/Management Science) fits better.
- Revise & resubmit — the developmental signal; the AE's letter prioritizes the issues. The process is typically multi-round; the AE letter is the contract for what must change.
- Conditional/minor — usually identification, robustness, exposition, or replication-package items.
Checklist
- You know your handling SE/AE structure and that review is double-anonymous
- You understand the first-pass bar (importance + model + readability + originality)
- You can map each reviewer point to model / identification / fit / counterfactual / transparency
- You have identified the AE's prioritized concerns (the real contract)
- You have decided whether to revise or redirect venues
Anti-patterns
- Treating MKSC review like a single-blind economics submission.
- Reading reviews as a checklist while ignoring the AE's stated priorities.
- Promising new structural estimation you cannot deliver in the next round.
Review-risk pass for Marketing Science
Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the demand/supply mechanism, fit evidence, and counterfactual decision margin; then test whether the manuscript addresses quantitative marketing reviewers who read the model through the managerial counterfactual it makes possible.
- Primary move: Turn likely reviewer objections into a ledger with response evidence, manuscript location, and the decision-maker who must be convinced first.
- Decision ledger: return
claim / evidence / blocker / next editrows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly. - Neighbor test: compare against Journal of Marketing Research for empirical marketing breadth, Management Science for wider OR/MS reach, Quantitative Marketing and Economics for specialist modeling; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
- Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open
resources/official-source-map.mdfor volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.
Output format
【Decision】reject / R&R / conditional
【Handling】SE/AE; double-anonymous (or Practice single-blind)
【AE priorities】1... 2... 3... (the contract)
【Reviewer themes】model / identification / fit / counterfactual / transparency
【Go/redirect】revise for MKSC or target another venue
【Next step】mksc-rebuttal (if revising)
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:04
