By name: mgsci-review-process description: Use to understand how Management Science (INFORMS) review and decisions work — the Department/area-editor desk screen, double-anonymized refereeing, the cross-department fit bar, official turnaround targets, and how to read a decision letter — before or after submitting. It explains the process; it does not draft the response (mgsci-rebuttal).
Review Process (mgsci-review-process)
When to trigger
- You want to know what happens to a submission and how long it takes
- You are unsure who decides (Department Editor vs Associate Editor vs Editor-in-Chief)
- A paper was desk-rejected and you need to understand why
- You received a decision letter and want to read it correctly before responding
How a submission flows
- Department/area routing. A submission is channeled into a specific Department (e.g., Accounting; Behavioral Economics and Decision Analysis; Data Science; Entrepreneurship and Innovation; Finance; Healthcare Management; Information Systems; Market Design, Platform, and Demand Analytics; Marketing; Operations Management; Optimization and Decision Analytics; Organizations; Stochastic Models and Simulation; Strategy; Sustainability). The Department Editor owns the desk screen and the standards for that field.
- Desk screen. The Department Editor, and possibly an Associate Editor, first evaluates whether the manuscript is a good fit for the department and has enough merit to send to reviewers. If not, the paper is returned with the editors' reasoning, commonly on fit ("better suited to Operations Research / M&SOM / Marketing Science") or insufficient rigor/contribution.
- External review. If the manuscript passes the initial screen, an Associate Editor recruits reviewers and later recommends to the Department Editor. Review is double-anonymous — neither side sees the other's identity.
- Decision. The Department Editor recommends; the Editor-in-Chief (Christoph Loch, term 2024–2026) provides final oversight and cross-department arbitration for ambiguous-fit papers.
The cross-department fit bar
Beyond field rigor, papers are judged on whether they belong in Management Science versus a sister INFORMS journal. Ambiguous-fit papers spanning departments are discussed across the editorial team, and a large share are redirected. Expect "fit" to be a first-order screen, not an afterthought.
Turnaround
The journal states that it strives to provide high-quality feedback to 90% of authors within 90 days. If a paper is sent to reviewers, authors receive a Department Editor decision within 65 days on average. Acceptance does not end the workflow: accepted numerical/computational papers still need the Code and Data Disclosure materials required before production.
Reading a decision letter
- Desk reject on fit → re-aim (see
mgsci-topic-selection) or target the named sister journal; usually not worth appealing. - Reject after review → the contribution or rigor did not clear the bar; a major reframe is needed.
- Major revision (R&R) → a real opportunity; the Department Editor's framing letter signals which reviewer points are decisive. Go to
mgsci-rebuttal. - Minor revision → rare early; address precisely and quickly.
Read the Department Editor's letter first — it tells you which reviewer concerns are binding and which are advisory.
Desk-reject reason map
Because Management Science is the multidisciplinary INFORMS flagship, the desk screen is run by a Department Editor enforcing that department's rigor bar and the cross-department fit test.
| Desk-reject reason | What it signals | Implied next move |
|---|---|---|
| "Better suited to a sister INFORMS journal" | A routing verdict, not necessarily quality | Re-aim or target the named journal |
| "Contribution does not clear the bar" | Rigor present, decision insight thin | Reframe; do not just resubmit |
| "No clear home department" | Ambiguous-fit; arbitration redirected it | Name a department + the bridge |
Worked micro-example (illustrative): two letters
Letter A: "Interesting model, but the algorithmic contribution would be better appreciated at Operations Research." This is a routing verdict — the work may be excellent, just mis-homed; do not appeal. Letter B: "The identification does not rule out selection, and the managerial implication is unclear." This is a substantive reject on two flagship bars (empirical leverage and a decision-relevant contribution); a major reframe plus a stronger design is needed. Distinguishing routing from substantive rejects decides whether you re-aim or rebuild.
Referee-pushback patterns and the venue-specific fix
- "Which department is this, and does it clear that bar?" Make the home department explicit at submission so the right editor desk-screens it; confirm the design meets that department's standard.
- "This belongs at a sister INFORMS journal." Surface the cross-department travel that distinguishes a flagship paper.
Calibration anchor
Turnaround targets, department rosters, and disclosure requirements evolve — treat the values above as current official guidance and re-check the source map before submission or appeal advice.
Anti-patterns
- Treating a fit-based desk reject as a quality verdict (it is often a routing verdict).
- Ignoring the Department Editor's prioritization and weighting all reviewer comments equally.
- Assuming acceptance means immediate publication — disclosure verification still runs.
Output format
【Stage】desk screen / under review / decision received
【Department & decider】Department Editor / AE / EiC
【Decision type】desk-reject(fit) / reject / R&R / minor
【Binding concerns】[from the DE letter]
【Next step】mgsci-rebuttal (R&R) or mgsci-topic-selection (re-aim)