Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› revacc-review-process
revacc-review-process
GitHub用于校准RAST期刊投稿预期，解析其快速首轮决策、双盲评审及会议路径等流程特点。指导用户判断论文成熟度、选择合适赛道或兄弟期刊，并制定投稿策略。
Trigger Scenarios
想了解RAST审稿周期和决定风格
收到简短首轮决定需解读
评估RAST快速流程是否适合当前论文阶段
在RAST会议与常规轨道间做选择
基于流程因素在RAST与TAR/JAR/JAE/CAR间比较
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill revacc-review-process -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "revacc-review-process",
"description": "Use when calibrating expectations for the Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) review cycle — its fast, first-round-decision culture, double-blind process, the RAST Conference path, and when to consider a sibling venue. Sets expectations and strategy; it does not run the submission preflight (revacc-submission) or draft the response letter (revacc-rebuttal)."
}
Review Process (revacc-review-process)
When to trigger
- You have submitted to RAST and want to understand what the timeline and decision will look like
- You received a terse first-round decision and need to interpret it
- You are deciding whether RAST's fast, decisive process fits your paper's stage of polish
- You are weighing the RAST Conference path against the regular track
- You are choosing between RAST and a sibling (TAR/JAR/JAE/CAR) on process grounds
RAST's distinguishing process culture
RAST advertises prompt turnaround and — importantly — an explicit tradition of making an accept/reject decision on the first round for the majority of manuscripts, rather than running paper after paper through multiple R&R cycles (待核实; 检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). This shapes strategy more than any other RAST fact:
- The first submission must be near-final. Because many papers get a first-round decision, you do not get the long iterative runway some journals offer. Identification, the model, exhibits, and the contribution should be settled before you submit — there may be no second chance to fix them.
- Decisions can be terse. A first-round reject may come with limited feedback; do not read brevity as carelessness — read it as the process working as designed.
- An R&R is a strong signal. When RAST does issue an R&R rather than a first-round decision, it is a meaningful vote of confidence; treat the editor's letter as the binding map (see
revacc-rebuttal).
Process facts to keep straight: double-blind review, Editorial Manager portal (both 待核实; 检索于 2026-06), and the USD $500 fee within 7 days (verified on the Springer submission guidelines, 核查于 2026-06-22; desk rejection refunds the fee minus a US$75 admin charge — re-verify before submitting).
The RAST Conference path
RAST runs a recurring conference whose accepted papers are considered for a conference issue, while all conference submissions are also reviewed for the regular journal (verified via the Wharton accounting page, 检索于 2026-06). Strategic reads:
- The conference offers presentation plus a fast read; a non-accepted conference paper still enters regular consideration, so it is a low-downside route for a paper that is ready.
- Confirm the current year's deadlines, host, and scope on the official call before committing.
When a sibling fits the process better
| If you need… | Consider |
|---|---|
| A long, multi-round runway to develop a rough-but-promising paper | TAR or CAR may offer more iterative review than RAST's first-round culture |
| A posted data-and-code package and Registered Reports as the headline | JAR |
| The economics-of-accounting house style and the JAE data archive | JAE |
| Equal standing for an analytical/disclosure model with fast turnaround | RAST is the natural home |
Calibrate and plan
- Confirm the paper is near-final before submitting — the first-round-decision norm is unforgiving of half-built work.
- Set internal expectations: a fast decision, possibly terse; an R&R is good news.
- Decide the conference-vs-regular path deliberately.
- Pre-stage the response-letter workflow (
revacc-rebuttal) only if an R&R arrives — do not pre-write it.
Checklist
- The paper was near-final before submission (no reliance on multiple R&R rounds)
- Expectations set for a fast, possibly first-round, decision
- Double-blind / portal / fee facts confirmed for the current cycle (待核实)
- Conference vs. regular path chosen on purpose
- Sibling-venue fit considered if RAST's process is a poor match
- An R&R, if received, is treated as a strong positive signal
Anti-patterns
- Submitting half-built work expecting RAST to develop it across rounds — its first-round norm punishes this.
- Misreading a terse reject as a process failure rather than the design working.
- Ignoring the conference path for a ready paper that would benefit from the fast read.
- Trusting cached timeline/fee facts instead of re-verifying for the current cycle.
- Pre-writing a rebuttal before any R&R exists.
Output format
【Process model】fast, first-round-decision culture; double-blind; Editorial Manager (待核实)
【Paper readiness】near-final before submission? yes/no
【Path】regular journal / RAST Conference issue
【Decision read】first-round accept/reject vs. R&R (R&R = strong signal)
【Sibling check】RAST vs TAR/JAR/JAE/CAR on process grounds
【Re-verify】timeline + fee + portal for current cycle
【Next skill】revacc-rebuttal (only if an R&R arrives)
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:20
