/amj-review-process

name: amj-review-process
description: Use when you need to understand or set expectations for the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) editorial and peer-review process — desk review, the developmental multi-round R&R culture, and reading a decision letter. Explains the process and how to read decisions; it does not draft the response letter (amj-rebuttal).

Understanding the Review Process (amj-review-process)

When to trigger

• Before submitting, to calibrate expectations about timeline 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 action editor carry
• You want to plan a revision strategy before drafting the response (then go to `amj-rebuttal`)

> Editorial structure, named editors, and exact timelines change. Verify the current editorial team, policies, and turnaround on the official AMJ site; the norms below are durable. As of 2026-05-30: AMJ uses **blind review**, targets constructive **developmental feedback to authors within ~60 days**, and the incoming Editor-in-Chief is **Gary A. Ballinger (University of Virginia)**, whose team began receiving submissions on 1 July 2025.

How AMJ review works (durable norms)

1. **Submission & routing.** The editor (or an associate/action editor) screens the manuscript and routes it to an action editor in the relevant division. Submission is via ScholarOne (mc.manuscriptcentral.com/AMJ) with all author identifiers removed for blind review. 2. **Desk decision.** Manuscripts that are off-fit, atheoretical, fatally underpowered, or that miss one of AMJ's three criteria (empirical contribution, theoretical contribution, practical relevance) may be desk-rejected without external review. A clear theoretical contribution and appropriate design are what get a paper past the desk. 3. **External peer review.** Typically several (often three) reviewers in the focal conversation evaluate the theoretical contribution, design rigor, and analysis; AMJ aims to return developmental feedback within roughly 60 days. 4. **Action editor synthesis.** The action editor weighs the reviews, forms an independent judgment, and writes the decision letter. The editor's letter — not a vote count — drives the outcome. 5. **Decision.** Common outcomes: reject; reject with encouragement to resubmit as new; major revision (R&R); minor revision; (rarely) accept. A first-round acceptance is essentially unheard of.

AMJ is developmental and multi-round

AMJ's culture is **developmental**: an R&R is an invitation to improve the paper over (often) multiple rounds. Reviewers and the action editor push hard on the **theoretical contribution** and the **method** — expect requests to deepen theory, add a study, strengthen identification, or address common-method/endogeneity concerns. Treat an R&R as a serious opportunity, not a near-acceptance, and not a rejection.

Reading the decision letter

• **Find the editor's priorities first.** The action editor's letter signals which reviewer points are essential vs. optional. Address the editor's framing above all.
• **Distinguish "fatal" from "fixable."** If a core identification or theory concern is fatal and unaddressable, an honest reframe (or a different paper) beats a doomed revision.
• **Gauge encouragement.** Language like "we see promise" + a major revision signals a real path; "does not fit our developmental model" signals reject.
• **Count the asks.** Map every reviewer point to: theory / method / analysis / framing / writing — this becomes the revision plan that feeds `amj-rebuttal`.

Planning the revision

• Decide whether you can satisfy the **theoretical-contribution** demands; if not, the revision will not succeed regardless of method fixes.
• Scope the new analyses/data the reviewers imply and whether they are feasible in the revision window.
• Identify points 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 action editor's priorities extracted and ranked above individual reviewer asks
• [ ] Every reviewer comment categorized (theory / method / analysis / framing / writing)
• [ ] Fatal vs. fixable concerns separated honestly
• [ ] Feasibility of demanded new theory/data/analyses 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 action editor's letter.
• Ignoring the editor's stated priorities while over-investing in a minor reviewer point.
• Starting to write 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】amj-rebuttal (plan revisions, then draft response)