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)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
