Review Process (isr-review-process)

When to trigger

• You want to know what happens after you submit to ISR
• A decision letter arrived and you need to read it correctly before responding
• You are unsure who the "SE" and "AE" are and what each controls
• You want to set realistic expectations for rounds and timelines

How ISR routes and reviews a paper

ISR uses an INFORMS-style Senior-Editor-led process, not departmental area editors:

1. EIC fit gate. The Editor-in-Chief (currently Suprateek Sarker) makes an initial editorial fit assessment against ISR's sociotechnical, intradisciplinary mission. Papers that are off-fit (single-paradigm with no IS contribution, IT-as-wallpaper, or a generic reference-discipline paper) can be returned here — which is exactly why the ~500-word contribution statement in your cover letter is read first.
2. Senior Editor (SE). A fitting paper is assigned to a Senior Editor who owns the paper and ultimately makes the final decision.
3. Associate Editor (AE). The SE works with an Associate Editor, who solicits 2-3 reviewers and integrates their recommendations.
4. Reviewers. Provide detailed assessments under double-anonymized review.

Understand the hierarchy when you read the letter: reviewers advise, the AE synthesizes, and the SE decides. The SE's letter is the one that defines what must change.

Reading the decision letter

• Identify the decisive voice. Weight the SE's framing most; it tells you which reviewer points are binding versus optional.
• Separate "fit/contribution" objections from "execution" objections. A challenge to the IS contribution or the intradisciplinary framing is more fundamental than a request for another robustness check.
• Map comments to genre. Analytical reviewers probe assumptions and proof completeness; behavioral reviewers probe identification, validity, and CMB; design-science reviewers probe evaluation rigor. Multimethod papers draw all three — expect the SE to ask how the methods integrate (per the 2025 ISR 36(2) framework).
• Note the verdict. Reject, major revision, or (rarely) minor revision; first-round accepts are essentially unheard of.

Decision-letter ledger

Build a short ledger before routing to isr-rebuttal. ISR letters often mix contribution, theory, method, and electronic-companion requests; a flat checklist hides which point controls the next round. Use these rows:

The output should be a priority order, not a complete response letter. If two reviewers disagree, write the disagreement in the ledger and attach it to the SE priority rather than averaging their requests.

Set expectations

ISR review is developmental and multi-round; timelines vary. Treat an R&R as an invitation to a conversation with the SE, not a checklist to clear mechanically.

Checklist

• [ ] Decisive voice (SE) identified and weighted above individual reviewers
• [ ] Fit/contribution objections separated from execution objections
• [ ] Comments mapped to genre (assumptions / identification / evaluation)
• [ ] Multimethod-integration concerns noted if applicable
• [ ] Verdict and what it permits understood before drafting a response

Anti-patterns

• Treating all reviewers equally and missing the SE's binding priorities.
• Answering execution nits while ignoring a contribution/fit challenge.
• Assuming an R&R is acceptance; the SE can still reject after revision.

Output format

【Verdict】reject / major / minor
【Decisive voice】SE priorities: [...]
【Fit/contribution objections】[...]
【Execution objections by genre】[...]
【Multimethod-integration asks】[...]
【Next step】isr-rebuttal