mksc-review-process

Review Process (mksc-review-process)

When to trigger

• You want to know what happens after you submit, and on what criteria
• You received a decision letter and need to interpret it before responding
• You are unsure how MKSC review differs from single-blind economics/marketing outlets

How the process works

• Editorial structure. The Editor-in-Chief (Puneet Manchanda, Michigan Ross; term Jan 1 2025–Dec 31 2027, renewable through 2030 — verified 2026-06-22) oversees a set of Senior Editors who handle assigned papers, working with Associate Editors — a Senior-Editor/Associate-Editor routing model, not Management Science's standing departmental Area Editors. Verify the current board on the editorial-board page before relying on specific names.
• Double-anonymous review. Regular submissions are reviewed double-anonymous per the INFORMS-wide mandate; reviewers do not see author identities, and the manuscript must stay blinded. The cover letter is seen by the Editor/AE but not reviewers. (Practice/Science-to-Practice tracks are single-blind.)
• First pass. The handling team screens for readability and whether the paper makes a significant, original contribution on an important topic using a credible model. Papers that are model-free, off-topic, or unreadable can be returned early.

What reviewers weigh

• Importance and fit — is the marketing question important, and is it answered through a model (the MKSC core)?
• Model and identification — are the assumptions defensible, the parameters credibly identified, the estimator appropriate?
• Fit and counterfactuals — does the model fit, and is the counterfactual/policy result valid and well-quantified?
• Originality / self-overlap — is the contribution genuinely new relative to prior work, including the authors' own?
• Transparency — can the work be reproduced (the Replication and Disclosure Policy looms on acceptance)?

Reading the decision letter

• Reject — usually a fit, importance, or identification problem the team sees as unfixable; weigh whether a different venue (JCR/JMR/Management Science) fits better.
• Revise & resubmit — the developmental signal; the AE's letter prioritizes the issues. The process is typically multi-round; the AE letter is the contract for what must change.
• Conditional/minor — usually identification, robustness, exposition, or replication-package items.

Checklist

• [ ] You know your handling SE/AE structure and that review is double-anonymous
• [ ] You understand the first-pass bar (importance + model + readability + originality)
• [ ] You can map each reviewer point to model / identification / fit / counterfactual / transparency
• [ ] You have identified the AE's prioritized concerns (the real contract)
• [ ] You have decided whether to revise or redirect venues

Anti-patterns

• Treating MKSC review like a single-blind economics submission.
• Reading reviews as a checklist while ignoring the AE's stated priorities.
• Promising new structural estimation you cannot deliver in the next round.

Review-risk pass for Marketing Science

Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the demand/supply mechanism, fit evidence, and counterfactual decision margin; then test whether the manuscript addresses quantitative marketing reviewers who read the model through the managerial counterfactual it makes possible.

• 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 Journal of Marketing Research for empirical marketing breadth, Management Science for wider OR/MS reach, Quantitative Marketing and Economics for specialist modeling; 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

【Decision】reject / R&R / conditional
【Handling】SE/AE; double-anonymous (or Practice single-blind)
【AE priorities】1... 2... 3... (the contract)
【Reviewer themes】model / identification / fit / counterfactual / transparency
【Go/redirect】revise for MKSC or target another venue
【Next step】mksc-rebuttal (if revising)