---
name: misq-review-process
description: Use to understand how MIS Quarterly's editorial process works and to read a decision letter — the double-anonymous model, the Senior-Editor/Associate-Editor routing where the SE owns the decision, what a major/minor revision versus reject signals, and what to expect across one or more revision rounds. Sets expectations and interprets decisions; the response itself is drafted with misq-rebuttal.
---

# Review Process (misq-review-process)

## When to trigger

- You want to set expectations before or just after submitting to MISQ
- A decision letter arrived and you need to read it correctly before reacting
- You are unsure who owns the decision and how the editors and reviewers relate
- You need to gauge whether a decision is encouraging or terminal

## How MISQ review is structured

MISQ uses **double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review**: authors and reviewers do not know each other's identities. Author and reviewer identities are known to the **Editor-in-Chief, the Senior Editor, the Associate Editor, and editorial staff**, but never to reviewers. The manuscript itself must contain no identifying information.

The routing is two-tier and distinctive:
1. A **Senior Editor (SE)** and an **Associate Editor (AE)** conduct the initial review;
2. if it advances, the paper goes to **external reviewers**;
3. the **Senior Editor owns the decision**, informed by the AE's and reviewers' input.

This SE-owns-the-decision structure (with the EIC overseeing) differs from INFORMS-style departmental area-editor desks; whether MISQ runs a formal area-editor desk structure is 待核实. The current Editor-in-Chief is Susan A. (Sue) Brown (University of Arizona; term Jan 1, 2024 – Dec 31, 2026) — verify the masthead before relying on it.

## Read the decision letter for what it actually says

| Decision | What it usually means | Your posture |
|----------|------------------------|--------------|
| **Major revision** | The SE sees a path; substantial work expected | A genuine opportunity — take every point seriously |
| **Minor revision** | Close; specific fixes remain | Address precisely; do not reopen settled issues |
| **Reject (with reasons)** | Not viable here as framed | Mine the reasons; consider a different framing/venue |
| **Reject and resubmit** (if offered) | Core idea has promise; current execution does not | Treat as a near-new paper |

Expect **one or more rounds of revision** — first-round acceptance is essentially unheard of. The SE's letter, not any single reviewer, is the authoritative guide to what must change.

## Calibrate to the SE letter, not the loudest reviewer

When reviewers conflict, the SE letter signals priorities. Identify which concerns the SE elevated (often theory contribution, identification/evaluation rigor, or transparency) versus reviewer points the SE did not endorse. Plan the revision around the SE's hierarchy.

## What reviewers and the SE will push on

- **Contribution to IS theory** within your tradition (or a defensible cross-tradition blend).
- **Methodological rigor** appropriate to the genre — identification (economics), validity/CMB (behavioral), evaluation against baselines (design science), trustworthiness (qualitative).
- **Research transparency** — whether your genre-appropriate materials and procedures/code support replication.
- **Fit and length** — does the contribution justify the category and stay within the page limit.

## Checklist

- [ ] You can name the SE's top priorities from the letter
- [ ] You distinguish SE-endorsed points from individual-reviewer points
- [ ] You correctly classify the decision (major/minor/reject/reject-and-resubmit)
- [ ] You know which tradition-specific rigor standard you are being held to
- [ ] Expectations set for multiple revision rounds

## Anti-patterns

- Treating every reviewer comment as equally binding regardless of the SE letter.
- Reading a major revision as a near-acceptance (it is real work).
- Reacting to a reject before extracting its reusable lessons.

## Output format

```
【Decision class】major / minor / reject / reject-and-resubmit
【SE priorities】ranked list from the letter
【SE-endorsed vs reviewer-only points】...
【Rigor standard in play】behavioral / economics / design science / qualitative
【Next step】misq-rebuttal
```