---
name: jfi-review-process
description: Use when navigating the Journal of Financial Intermediation (JFI) editorial process — the active desk-rejection policy, single-anonymized (single-blind) review with a minimum of one expert referee, the editor's final and unappealable decision, and the option to choose the Managing Editor. It sets expectations; it does not draft content.
---

# Review Process (jfi-review-process)

## When to trigger

- Before submission, to calibrate expectations on timing, odds, and what "single-blind" implies
- After a decision, to understand what is (and is not) negotiable
- Deciding whether to request a specific Managing Editor

## Process facts (verified 2026-06-01; re-confirm on the official Guide for Authors)

- **Active desk-rejection.** The process is explicitly designed so a large share of submissions are
  rejected **without full review**. A clean, well-targeted submission is part of clearing this screen.
- **Editor-first triage.** Papers are first assessed by the editor for suitability; suitable papers are
  typically sent to a **minimum of one independent expert reviewer** — fewer than the two common at many
  finance journals.
- **Single-anonymized (single-blind) review.** Referees see the authors' identities; authors do **not** see
  referee identities. You do **not** need to anonymize the manuscript body.
- **Final, unappealable decision.** The Editor makes the final decision and **that decision is final**.
  Plan as if there is no appeals channel.
- **Choose your Managing Editor.** Authors may request the Managing Editor in charge of their submission
  (accommodated within constraints); papers are reviewed largely by editorial-board-level experts.
- The **Editor-in-Chief / current Managing Editor is 待核实** — the official editorial-board page could not
  be confirmed from a dated source (HTTP 403). Conflicting secondary names appear (Thakor, von Thadden,
  Fulghieri, Campello). Verify before requesting an editor by name.

## How to use these facts

- **Pass the desk screen first.** Lead with the intermediation mechanism and contribution in the abstract
  and introduction; do not bury them (see jfi-contribution-framing).
- **Plan for one strong referee.** A single expert can carry the decision — pre-empt the most likely
  objection from a banking specialist (see jfi-rebuttal).
- **Treat the decision as final.** Win up front with a clean submission and tight cover letter.
- **Pick the editor deliberately** if your topic maps to a board member's expertise — but verify current
  editors first (待核实).

## Desk-reject patterns at this journal

| Pattern | Why JFI's screen catches it |
|---|---|
| Correlational bank-panel paper with no design | Empirics here must discipline a mechanism, not document an association |
| Banks as a setting, not the subject | Intermediation must be load-bearing (see jfi-topic-selection) |
| Pure asset pricing or corporate finance | Outside the journal's home ground, however polished |
| Policy commentary without an economic model or design | The journal publishes research, not assessment notes |
| Mechanism buried past page 3 | Triage reads the abstract and introduction only |

## Calibration: the shape of papers that survive (hedged)

As reading-based calibration, not stated policy: surviving empirical papers pair a tight introduction
with an identification section that confronts demand-side confounds head-on, a main table plus a dynamics
figure, and robustness in an appendix; theory papers carry propositions in the text, proofs in an
appendix, and often a numerical illustration of the mechanism. Timelines and acceptance shares are not
published in a form this skill will quote — confirm against the journal's current author guidelines and
recent issues rather than secondhand statistics. A practical proxy: skim the latest two issues and note
how quickly each paper states its intermediation mechanism; that is the de facto screen you must match.
Note also which sub-literatures the current issues carry — a venue actively publishing fintech and
shadow-banking work signals appetite beyond traditional bank-balance-sheet papers.

## Anti-patterns

- Anonymizing the body as if double-blind (unnecessary; this is single-blind)
- Assuming a two-referee process and being surprised by a single decisive report
- Planning an appeal for a decision the journal states is final
- Naming a requested editor from outdated secondary sources

## Output format

```
【Desk-screen risk】<what could trip the screen + fix>
【Referee plan】likely-one-expert objection + pre-empt
【Editor choice】request <name/board area> or default  (current editors 待核实)
【Decision posture】treat as final; win up front
```