jme-review-process

Review Process (jme-review-process)

When to trigger

• You need to set expectations for what happens after submission
• You are unsure what "up or out" means for your revision strategy
• You want to know whether to suggest referees or request exclusions
• A decision arrived and you need to interpret it

How JME review works

• Single anonymized (single-blind) review: reviewers know the author identities; authors do not know the reviewers. Plan your framing and self-citation accordingly — there is no point anonymizing the manuscript.
• At least two reviewers: suitable submissions are typically sent to a minimum of two reviewers.
• Editors: the journal is led by two co-Editors-in-Chief, S. Borağan Aruoba (University of Maryland) and Eric Swanson (University of California, Irvine) (Aruoba appointed as one of the two Editors-in-Chief effective January 1, 2022); neither outranks the other.
• Suggested / excluded referees: in the cover letter, authors may suggest up to five referees and request that some not be used.
• Reconsideration: a formal reconsideration of a rejection is costly, rare, and unlikely to reverse the decision — do not bank on it.

The distinctive "up or out" funnel

JME's process is unusual and worth internalizing:

1. A first-round decision is reject or revise-and-resubmit — there is no slow drip of multiple R&R rounds.
2. Editors invite a resubmission only when they judge at least a 50% likelihood of ultimate publication. An R&R is therefore a strong (though not guaranteed) signal.
3. The resubmission is "up or out": it must result in acceptance or rejection — there is no second round of revise-and-resubmit. Your one revision has to fully resolve the referees' concerns.

This funnel changes strategy: you cannot count on iterating across many rounds, so the first revision must be comprehensive, and at submission your contribution must be sharp enough to clear the 50% bar.

Fee mechanics tied to the process

• A US$350 submission fee (US$200 for full-time PhD students) is charged up front; a manuscript is only considered after payment.
• No fee is charged for revised/resubmitted manuscripts.
• If a paper is desk-returned without full review (within roughly three months), one half of the fee is refunded.

Checklist

• [ ] You understand review is single-blind (do not anonymize)
• [ ] Up to five suggested referees + any exclusions prepared for the cover letter
• [ ] You are prepared for at least two referee reports
• [ ] You understand the first revision is "up or out" (no second R&R)
• [ ] You understand an R&R signals ~50% publication likelihood, not certainty

Review-risk pass for Journal of Monetary Economics

Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the main macro object, the identifying variation, and the policy-relevant counterfactual; then test whether the manuscript addresses macro and monetary economists who expect the shock, mechanism, and policy margin to be visible early.

• Primary move: Turn likely reviewer objections into a ledger with response evidence, manuscript location, and the decision-maker who must be convinced first.
• Decision ledger: return claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
• Neighbor test: compare against JIE for open-economy trade/finance emphasis, RED for dynamic macro theory, AEJ Macro for broader field positioning; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
• Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.

Output format

【Review model】single anonymized (single-blind), ≥2 reviewers
【Suggested/excluded referees】ready? Y/N
【Decision type】reject / R&R (R&R ⇒ ~50% likelihood)
【Revision rule】"up or out" — one revision, then accept or reject
【Next step】jme-submission (pre-submit) or jme-rebuttal (on R&R)