Understanding the Review Process (amj-review-process)

When to trigger

• Before submitting, to calibrate expectations about timeline and decision types
• A decision letter arrived and you need to interpret it (R&R vs. reject; major vs. minor)
• You are unsure how much weight reviewers vs. the action editor carry
• You want to plan a revision strategy before drafting the response (then go to amj-rebuttal)

Editorial structure, named editors, and exact timelines change. Verify the current editorial team, policies, and turnaround on the official AMJ site; the norms below are durable. As of 2026-05-30: AMJ uses blind review, targets constructive developmental feedback to authors within ~60 days, and the incoming Editor-in-Chief is Gary A. Ballinger (University of Virginia), whose team began receiving submissions on 1 July 2025.

How AMJ review works (durable norms)

1. Submission & routing. The editor (or an associate/action editor) screens the manuscript and routes it to an action editor in the relevant division. Submission is via ScholarOne (mc.manuscriptcentral.com/AMJ) with all author identifiers removed for blind review.
2. Desk decision. Manuscripts that are off-fit, atheoretical, fatally underpowered, or that miss one of AMJ's three criteria (empirical contribution, theoretical contribution, practical relevance) may be desk-rejected without external review. A clear theoretical contribution and appropriate design are what get a paper past the desk.
3. External peer review. Typically several (often three) reviewers in the focal conversation evaluate the theoretical contribution, design rigor, and analysis; AMJ aims to return developmental feedback within roughly 60 days.
4. Action editor synthesis. The action editor weighs the reviews, forms an independent judgment, and writes the decision letter. The editor's letter — not a vote count — drives the outcome.
5. Decision. Common outcomes: reject; reject with encouragement to resubmit as new; major revision (R&R); minor revision; (rarely) accept. A first-round acceptance is essentially unheard of.

AMJ is developmental and multi-round

AMJ's culture is developmental: an R&R is an invitation to improve the paper over (often) multiple rounds. Reviewers and the action editor push hard on the theoretical contribution and the method — expect requests to deepen theory, add a study, strengthen identification, or address common-method/endogeneity concerns. Treat an R&R as a serious opportunity, not a near-acceptance, and not a rejection.

Reading the decision letter

• Find the editor's priorities first. The action editor's letter signals which reviewer points are essential vs. optional. Address the editor's framing above all.
• Distinguish "fatal" from "fixable." If a core identification or theory concern is fatal and unaddressable, an honest reframe (or a different paper) beats a doomed revision.
• Gauge encouragement. Language like "we see promise" + a major revision signals a real path; "does not fit our developmental model" signals reject.
• Count the asks. Map every reviewer point to: theory / method / analysis / framing / writing — this becomes the revision plan that feeds amj-rebuttal.

Planning the revision

• Decide whether you can satisfy the theoretical-contribution demands; if not, the revision will not succeed regardless of method fixes.
• Scope the new analyses/data the reviewers imply and whether they are feasible in the revision window.
• Identify points where reviewers conflict; plan to surface the conflict for the editor rather than silently siding with one.

Checklist

• Decision type identified (R&R major/minor, reject-resubmit, reject)
• The action editor's priorities extracted and ranked above individual reviewer asks
• Every reviewer comment categorized (theory / method / analysis / framing / writing)
• Fatal vs. fixable concerns separated honestly
• Feasibility of demanded new theory/data/analyses assessed against the deadline
• Reviewer conflicts noted for the editor's attention

Anti-patterns

• Treating an R&R as a near-acceptance and making only cosmetic changes.
• Treating an R&R as a rejection and walking away from a viable path.
• Counting reviewer votes instead of reading the action editor's letter.
• Ignoring the editor's stated priorities while over-investing in a minor reviewer point.
• Starting to write the response letter before mapping and planning the revision.

Output format

【Decision type】R&R(major/minor) / reject-resubmit / reject
【Editor's priorities】1... 2... 3...
【Comment map】theory:[...] method:[...] analysis:[...] framing:[...] writing:[...]
【Fatal vs. fixable】...
【New work needed】theory / data / analysis — feasible? ...
【Reviewer conflicts】...
【Next step】amj-rebuttal (plan revisions, then draft response)