Review Process (joe-review-process)

When to trigger

• You want to know how JoE evaluates a methodological submission, end to end
• You are choosing among the Regular / Annals / Themed Issue tracks
• You are anticipating referee objections before submitting or after a revision request
• You are unsure who decides (editors, Co-Editors, Guest Associate Editors)

How JoE review works

• Single-anonymized review: referees know the authors' identities; authors do not know the referees.
• Editor screening first: editors screen submissions; suitable papers are sent to a minimum of two independent expert referees, and the editors make the final decision. Unsuitable or out-of-scope papers are desk-screened out.
• Co-Editors-in-Chief: Michael Jansson (UC Berkeley) and Aureo de Paula (UCL), supported by a set of Co-Editors. Check the live board page for the complete current roster before naming a handling editor.

The three submission tracks

• Regular Issues — standard standalone methodological papers; the default route.
• Annals Issues — focused volumes assembled around a coherent theme.
• Themed Issues — topic-based collections, often originating from conferences. Proposal organizers may serve as Guest Associate Editors who make recommendations to the Co-Editors; Themed Issues still go through the regular editorial process. If your work matches an active theme, this can be a strong, well-matched route (check the journal's Themes page for current calls).

Pick the track deliberately: a standalone advance → Regular; a contribution that fits an active call → Themed/Annals, where a Guest Associate Editor close to the topic may handle it.

What methods referees look for

1. Genuine methodological contribution with mathematical rigor — proofs/asymptotics, not a relabeled method.
2. Primitive, verifiable assumptions and honest asymptotics (no smuggling the conclusion).
3. Monte Carlo that reports size and size-adjusted power and stresses the assumptions.
4. Precise positioning against the nearest estimator/test.
5. Reproducibility — runnable estimator and a run_all pipeline.
6. Scope fit — a methodological advance, not a purely applied result.

Practical reading of the process

• A clean editor screen rewards a contribution stated plainly in the abstract/intro (see joe-contribution-framing, joe-writing-style).
• Because referees are specialists, the closest-competitor comparison and the boundary-case Monte Carlo are where reports are won or lost.
• Expect detailed, technical referee reports; a revision request usually means "make the theory/Monte Carlo airtight," handled in joe-rebuttal.

Editor-screen packet

Before submission, assemble a four-item packet for the first editorial read:

If the packet cannot be filled without hedging, the paper is not ready for JoE screening. Fix the formal core before investing in formatting.

Anti-patterns

• Treating JoE like a double-anonymized journal and over-anonymizing (it is single-anonymized)
• Submitting to a Themed Issue whose scope your paper does not actually match
• Ignoring that editors screen first — a buried contribution dies at the screen
• Assuming a purely applied paper will survive referees here
• Letting a simulation-heavy paper hide the absence of a formal methodological advance

Output format

【Review model】single-anonymized; editor screen → ≥2 referees
【Track】Regular / Annals / Themed (+ Guest AE if themed)
【Handling editor】Co-Editor / Guest AE; final call by editors
【Referee hot spots】assumptions / asymptotics / size-power / positioning / reproducibility
【Editor-screen packet】advance / competitor / formal core / finite-sample credibility
【Scope check】methodological advance present? [Y/N]
【Next step】joe-submission