---
name: jcr-review-process
description: Use when understanding how Journal of Consumer Research (JCR) review and decisions work — double-anonymized review, the co-editor/AE/reviewer structure, decision letters, and what reviewers from different disciplines expect — before submitting or when a decision arrives. Sets expectations; the actual response is drafted in jcr-rebuttal.
---

# Review Process (jcr-review-process)

## When to trigger

- You want to know what to expect after submitting to JCR
- A decision letter arrived and you need to read it before responding
- You are unsure who handles the manuscript and what each reviewer weighs
- You want to calibrate to JCR's developmental, multi-round culture

## How JCR review is organized

JCR uses **double-anonymized** (masked) peer review: reviewers do not see author identity and authors do not see reviewers'. Editorially, the journal is led by an **Editor in Chief** (Oleg Urminsky, Chicago Booth, term Jan 1, 2025 – Dec 31, 2028) with **Co-Editors** who handle full manuscript portfolios, **Associate Editors**, an **Editorial Review Board**, and ad hoc reviewers. The active co-editor roster is time-sensitive — **待核实**; confirm the current masthead at consumerresearcher.com. The precise desk-assignment/routing mechanism is **待核实** (the official pages do not describe a fixed departmental area-editor routing); in practice a co-editor takes the manuscript and assigns reviewers.

JCR's identity as a **multi-disciplinary** journal shapes the review: you may draw reviewers from psychology, anthropology, sociology, economics, marketing, or statistics, and an experimental paper and a CCT paper are held to **the same conceptual bar** — advancing, deepening, or repudiating theory about consumption — even though their evidentiary standards differ.

## What reviewers weigh

- **Conceptual contribution first.** Reviewers ask "what do we now understand about consumers?" as insistently as "is the evidence sound?" A robust effect with no theory advance will not clear the bar.
- **Evidence appropriate to the genre.** Experimentalists probe process evidence (mediation, manipulated mediators, boundary conditions, clean inference); interpretive reviewers probe trustworthiness, immersion, and the grounding of conceptual claims.
- **Research transparency.** Expect scrutiny of the **Data Collection Statement**, data/materials availability, replication code, and reporting completeness, especially at revision.
- **Interdisciplinary legibility.** A reviewer outside your subfield must be able to follow the argument.

## Reading the decision letter

- **Reject / desk reject:** usually a fit or contribution problem — return to `jcr-topic-selection` / `jcr-contribution-framing`.
- **Revise & resubmit (R&R):** developmental; the editor's letter prioritizes which concerns are decisive. First-round accepts are essentially unheard of — an R&R is a strong signal.
- Map each reviewer point to a stage (theory / methods / analysis / framing / exhibits) and to the relevant jcr-* skill before drafting a response.
- Note any **transparency conditions** (post data/materials, supply code) that become required at invited revision.

## Expectations & norms

- The process is **developmental and multi-round**; plan for substantial revision cycles.
- Treat the editor's framing as the spine of your revision priorities; reconcile conflicting reviewer requests transparently rather than averaging them.
- Re-anonymize the revised manuscript; double-anonymized review continues across rounds.

## Anti-patterns

- Reading reviews as a checklist while ignoring the editor's priorities.
- Assuming the contribution is accepted because the method passed.
- Underestimating the number of revision rounds.
- Deferring transparency compliance until after acceptance.

## Output format

```
【Decision type】reject / desk reject / R&R
【Editor's priorities】the decisive concerns, in order
【Reviewer map】each point → stage → jcr-* skill
【Genre standard】experimental process evidence / CCT trustworthiness
【Transparency conditions】data/materials/code required at revision?
【Next step】jcr-rebuttal (if R&R) or re-scope (if reject)
```