---
name: geb-review-process
description: Use when you need to understand how Games and Economic Behavior (GEB) actually evaluates a paper — the Editor-in-Charge model, anonymous Advisory Editors and referees, desk-reject and acceptance odds — so you can target the right audience and set expectations. Explains the process; it does not draft content.
---

# Review Process (geb-review-process)

## When to trigger

- You want to know who actually decides on your GEB paper before submitting
- You are calibrating expectations on desk-reject odds and timelines
- You are writing a cover letter and need to know who reads it first
- A decision arrived and you want to interpret the roles behind it

## The GEB Editor-in-Charge model (distinctive)

GEB's process is unusually transparent about *who handles your paper* while keeping evaluators anonymous:

- The **chief editor** (Hervé Moulin since 2021; 待核实 for the current masthead) assigns each submission to **one of seven Editors**, who becomes the **publicly known "Editor in Charge"** with **final decision authority** on your paper. You can see who holds your paper — unusual among journals.
- The Editor in Charge typically routes the paper to an **anonymous Advisory Editor** (GEB has roughly **45** advisory editors; 待核实). The Advisory Editor **selects referees and recommends a decision**.
- **Referees and Advisory Editors are anonymous to authors**; the Editor in Charge is not. This is best described as a **single-anonymized** model (authors known to evaluators; evaluators anonymous to authors) — the exact phrase is 待核实 against the official page.
- GEB is an **official journal of the Game Theory Society** (Elsevier), so every layer is staffed by game-theory specialists.

## The numbers (set expectations)

- **~800 submissions per year** handled by seven Editors plus ~45 Advisory Editors (待核实).
- **About one-third of submissions are desk-rejected** — the Editor in Charge will desk-reject papers judged to have no chance of meeting the publication criterion, before refereeing.
- **Roughly 15%** of submitted papers are ultimately published.
- Implication: the **first page and abstract must convince a specialist Editor fast**; clearing the desk screen is a distinct hurdle from passing referees.

## How to use this when submitting

- **Write for the Editor in Charge first.** A game theorist who must see the advance quickly (see geb-contribution-framing, geb-writing-style).
- **Help routing.** A precise contribution and clear sub-field signal which Editor/Advisory Editor fits.
- **Stay neutral on identity.** Referees and Advisory Editors are anonymous; do not speculate about or address them by name.
- **Expect specialist scrutiny.** Nearest-prior-work authors may referee; position honestly (see geb-literature-positioning).

## Anti-patterns

- Treating GEB like a double-blind general journal (the Editor in Charge is *known*; the model is single-anonymized — 待核实)
- Assuming a fast accept; with ~one-third desk-rejected and ~15% published, the screen is hard
- A vague intro that gives the Editor in Charge no fast reason to send it out
- Naming or guessing referees/Advisory Editors in the manuscript


## Review-risk pass for Games and Economic Behavior

Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the primitives, equilibrium concept, comparative statics, and proof or experiment boundary; then test whether the manuscript addresses game theorists who ask what the model teaches beyond a clever example.

- **Primary move:** Turn likely reviewer objections into a ledger with response evidence, manuscript location, and the decision-maker who must be convinced first.
- **Decision ledger:** return `claim / evidence / blocker / next edit` rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
- **Neighbor test:** compare against JET for theory abstraction, Theoretical Economics for compact theory contribution, Experimental Economics for experiment-first designs; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
- **Verification floor:** before submission-ready advice, re-open `resources/official-source-map.md` for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.

## Output format

```
【Editor in Charge】one of seven Editors, publicly known, final authority
【Advisory Editor】anonymous; selects referees + recommends (待核实 count ~45)
【Referees】anonymous; specialists; possibly nearest-prior-work authors
【Model】single-anonymized (待核实 exact phrasing)
【Odds】~1/3 desk-rejected; ~15% published
【Action】sharpen page 1 for the Editor in Charge → geb-submission
```