Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› rof-review-process
rof-review-process
GitHub解析《Review of Finance》审稿流程，涵盖双盲评审、顶刊标准、两轮决策机制及快速通道规则。用于解读编辑决定、规避 desk-rejection 陷阱（如范围不符或格式违规），并明确未披露重投的处罚措施。
Trigger Scenarios
解读 Review of Finance 的编辑决定信
询问 RoF 的投稿时间线和双盲评审要求
分析 Screen Report 或 Desk Rejection 原因
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill rof-review-process -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "rof-review-process",
"description": "Use when interpreting Review of Finance desk screening, Screen Reports, double-blind review, top-three-finance-journal referee standards, two-round decision philosophy, Fast-Track timing, and sanctions for undisclosed resubmission or dual submission."
}
Review of Finance Review Process
Use this to plan around RoF's editorial model.
Process model
- RoF uses double-blind anonymous review under the current OUP instructions; manuscripts must contain no author-identifying references (also scrub PDF metadata).
- Screen Reports from trusted referees and Associate Editors can inform desk-rejection decisions before full review.
- Referees are asked to apply top-three-finance-journal standards and to separate their comments into (1) major concerns required for publication and (2) suggestions. Read reports through this lens: bucket (1) is what you must satisfy.
- RoF states a two-round decision philosophy: it aims to decide by the second round and will likely ignore new round-two concerns not raised in round one and unrelated to your changes, so round one is decisive.
- Published papers identify the accepting editor and the submission and acceptance dates; the policy frames authors (not referees) as the owners of the paper.
- Fast-Track submissions pay a premium (EUR 900 first submission) for a 14-day decision target.
- Undisclosed resubmission of a rejected RoF paper, or simultaneous submission elsewhere, triggers desk rejection and a two-year submission ban. Authors are also responsible for searching and citing relevant work — lack of awareness is not a defense.
Desk-screen patterns at this journal
| Pattern | Why the desk catches it |
|---|---|
| Field-journal scope: single-market detail, no general finance lesson | referees are instructed to apply top-three standards; the Screen Report saves everyone a round |
| Cap or format breach: over 60 pages, abstract over 150 words | mechanical compliance is a stated condition of submission |
| Identifiable manuscript: acknowledgements, repo links, live metadata | double-blind violation |
| Undisclosed prior RoF rejection or parallel submission | the sanctioned offense — desk rejection plus the two-year ban |
| Kitchen-sink regressions with no identification spine | the editorial culture prizes clean identification and economic magnitudes |
Timing expectations (hedged)
- Regular track: no published decision guarantee; the refund trigger for decisions past 120 days signals the journal's own benchmark for a slow round — plan in months, and confirm the current schedule against the journal's current author guidelines.
- Fast-Track: a 14-day decision target after valid payment, built for finished papers facing competition; confirm the current decision set and refund mechanics before paying.
- Screen Reports can close the file within weeks, with partial fee refund on the regular track — evidence the desk filter is genuinely used, not ornamental.
Reading the decision letter
- Count bucket-1 items per referee, then read the editor's letter for which of them are binding — when referees conflict, the editor's framing wins.
- A reject-and-resubmit at a two-round journal functions like a hard R&R: the clock and the fee restart, and the resubmission must disclose the history (nondisclosure is the banned offense, not the resubmission itself).
- Treat round one as the only round in which new evidence reliably counts; build the
response (see
rof-rebuttal) so nothing decisive is deferred. - Because published RoF papers name the accepting editor and the submission/acceptance dates, the process is unusually auditable — sample recent issues to calibrate realistic durations in your subfield.
Editorial board (as of the 1 January 2026 update — re-verify)
Managing Editor Marcin Kacperczyk (Imperial College London), with Editors including Ian Dew-Becker, Hui Chen, Laurent Fresard, Marcus Opp, Jun Pan, Jacopo Ponticelli, David Solomon, and Margarita Tsoutsoura, plus ~29 Associate Editors. Hui Chen and Margarita Tsoutsoura became Editors on 1 January 2026, succeeding Xavier Giroud (stepped down end of 2025); Jun Pan's term ends June 2026. Exact AE count is 待核实 — confirm on revfin.org/editorial-board/.
Output format
[Stage] pre-screen / review / R&R / resubmission / accepted
[Decision standard] <top-three concern>
[Round-one must-fix] <issue>
[Process risk] <dual submission, disclosure, fee, anonymity, or code>
[Next move] <specific action>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:23
