---
name: rje-review-process
description: Use to understand and plan around The RAND Journal of Economics (RJE) review pipeline — the upfront editor screen (possible desk reject), peer review by two anonymous referees, and a final read by the handling Editor. Sets expectations and shapes a submission that clears the first screen.
---

# Review Process (rje-review-process)

## When to trigger

- You want to know what happens after you press submit on Wiley Research Exchange
- You are deciding how to pitch the cover letter and front-load the contribution
- You are gauging desk-reject risk before paying the submission fee

## How RJE review works (verified 2026-06-01)

RJE uses an **editor-screened, then two-anonymous-referee** model (source: rje.org/submissions.html):

1. **Editor screen.** Each manuscript is first assigned to an Editor on the Board of Editors who **quickly reviews it and may desk-reject** before any refereeing. The current **Editor-in-Chief is Craig A. Bond (RAND)**; handling Editors include IO specialists such as Gary Biglaiser, Ying Fan, Alessandro Gavazza, Jean-François Houde, Julian Wright, and Jidong Zhou. Because the front screen is explicit and fast, the **first page of the article and the cover letter must make the IO contribution legible immediately**.
2. **Two anonymous referees.** Manuscripts that survive the screen go to **two referees who are anonymous to authors**. (Whether author identity is concealed from referees — single vs double blind — is **待核实**; do not assume double-blind.)
3. **Handling Editor decision.** The handling Editor reads the reports and the article and issues the decision (reject / R&R / rare accept).

## What clears the screen at the IO flagship

- A **first-order industrial-organization question** stated in the opening paragraph (market structure, competition/antitrust, regulation, firm strategy, the economics of organizations) — not a general-micro or macro question.
- A **credible method matched to the question**: a well-specified structural model (demand/supply, entry, auctions) or a clean reduced-form design off a policy/merger shock.
- **Respect for the hard page caps** (40/50 pp) — an overlong submission signals undisciplined exposition to a screening Editor.
- A cover letter that names the market, the method, and the **headline result and welfare/policy lesson** in a few sentences.

## Desk-reject risk table (calibrate before you submit)

The editor screen is the first gate. Estimate your risk against the patterns that bounce IO manuscripts early.

| Manuscript trait | Screen risk | Why the Board Editor reacts |
|---|---|---|
| First-order IO question on page 1 | Low | Matches the journal's narrow IO scope |
| Method named, matched to question | Low | Signals a credible, refereeable design |
| General-micro / macro framing | High | Wrong journal; not an IO advance |
| Over-length, sprawling exposition | Medium-High | Page caps are hard; signals undisciplined writing |
| Welfare/policy lesson buried in conclusion | Medium | IO contribution not legible at the screen |
| Thin or contested identification | Medium | A referee will catch it; Editor may pre-empt |

## Worked vignette: anticipating the screen on an auction paper

Suppose you submit a structural auction article estimating bidder valuations in timber auctions and inferring the revenue effect of a reserve-price change. Reading as the screening Editor would:

- **IO hook**: the opening must name the market (timber procurement auctions), the firms (bidders, the seller), and the policy question (optimal reserve price) — not lead with the estimation method.
- **Method match**: a first-price-auction model mapping bids to the value distribution through equilibrium FOCs, with the information paradigm stated (private vs common values) — a credible, refereeable design.
- **Stake on page 1**: the headline revenue/welfare consequence of the reserve change stated up front, not deferred.
- **Cover letter**: three sentences naming the market, the structural method, the headline result (illustratively, an optimal reserve raises seller revenue ~3%), and the auction-design lesson.

Framed this way, desk-reject risk is low; the same content with a methods-first opening and a buried policy lesson invites an early bounce.

## Referee and editor expectations once past the screen

- The two anonymous referees apply IO field norms: they probe identification of structural primitives, conduct assumptions, and counterfactual credibility.
- The handling Editor synthesizes the reports and weights them — the decision letter, not any single report, is the binding document for any revision.
- Anonymity of referees to authors is confirmed; whether author identity is concealed from referees is unconfirmed — confirm against the journal's current author guidelines rather than assuming double-blind.

## Anti-patterns

- Treating RJE like a general-interest journal and burying the IO hook
- Assuming a slow, multi-reviewer process — RJE leans on a **fast editor screen + two referees**
- Asserting the review is double-blind and writing the article around that (待核实)
- A defensive, sprawling cover letter the screening Editor cannot skim

## Output format

```
【Stage model】editor screen → 2 anonymous referees → handling Editor
【Desk-reject risk】high / medium / low + why
【IO hook on page 1?】[Y/N]
【Cover letter】names market + method + headline + policy lesson? [Y/N]
【Next step】rje-submission (preflight) or rje-contribution-framing (sharpen hook)
```