---
name: aerj-review-process
description: Use to understand how an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript will be judged — masked (anonymous) peer review, desk screening, routing to the right section (SIA or TLHD), and decision categories. Sets expectations and informs strategy; it does not contact editors or reviewers.
---

# Review Process (aerj-review-process)

Knowing how AERJ evaluates a paper shapes how you write and submit it. AERJ uses **masked (anonymous)
review**, screens for fit before sending out for review, and routes the manuscript to **one of two
separately edited sections**. Verify volatile specifics (timelines, reviewer counts, desk-reject rate)
on the official page — they are not published as fixed numbers.

## When to trigger

- Setting expectations before or after submission
- Anticipating likely reviewer objections to pre-empt in the draft
- Understanding why a desk rejection happened, or what an R&R signals
- Deciding which section and how to frame the cover letter

## How AERJ review works (verify current details)

1. **Section routing.** The manuscript goes to **SIA** or **TLHD**, each with its own editorial team.
   The section you choose determines which editors and reviewer pool see it.
2. **Editorial screening / desk decision.** Editors first assess **fit and quality** — broad
   significance, framing, methodological soundness, and adherence to scope/standards. Off-fit or
   clearly under-developed papers may be **desk-rejected** without external review.
3. **Masked external review.** Suitable papers go to multiple expert reviewers under **masked
   (anonymous)** review — reviewers do not see author identities, and authors do not see reviewer
   identities. Reviewers judge significance, framework, design/method, analysis, and contribution.
4. **Decision.** Typical categories: **reject**, **revise and resubmit (R&R)**, or **accept** (usually
   after revision). R&R is the common path to publication for promising work.

## What reviewers reward (write toward these)

- A question of **broad significance** with a clear conceptual/theoretical **framework**
- A design and analysis that meet the **AERA reporting standards** for the method
- Honest scope conditions, limitations, and attention to equity/context
- Self-contained, APA-formatted exhibits and clear, field-legible prose

## Anti-patterns

- Submitting to the wrong section (slower, weaker fit)
- A paper that only specialists would value (desk-reject risk on significance)
- Method-standard mismatch (e.g., causal claims without a causal design)
- Leaving identifying clues that compromise masking
- Treating an R&R as acceptance rather than a demanding revision

## Output format

```
【Section】SIA / TLHD — correctly routed? [Y/N]
【Desk-screen risk】fit + significance + standards [low/med/high]
【Likely reviewer objections】top 2–3 to pre-empt
【Decision categories】reject / R&R / accept-after-revision
【Prep】what to strengthen before submitting
【Next】aerj-submission (or aerj-rebuttal on a decision)
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — masked review, sections, and editorial team (待核实 on volatile items)
- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — reporting-standards references reviewers apply