Review Process

The goal is to have a 2-cycle review process.

1. The manuscript is assigned to the EiC. If the EiC has a conflict of interest, then a back-up EiC will handle the manuscript.
2. The Area Editor receives the manuscript, and strives to make a fit determination within one week (see Area Editor statements). If the paper is a fit for the Area, then the Area Editor passes on to an Associate Editor. For conference-to-journal submissions, the Area Editor (possible in consultation with the Associate Editor) must decide if the incremental novelty is sufficient (see Conference-to-Journal Submission Policy); the reviewers do not decide.
3. The Associate Editor receives the manuscript, and, within two weeks, determines if the paper has the potential to be over the bar for OR (see here for journal Editorial statement). Two criteria for desk rejecting are:
   1. If the Associate Editor has very strong expectation that both review reports will be negative, then the Associate Editor should desk reject.
   2. If the Associate Editor feels confident that the paper should not be published, even if all results are correct, then the Associate Editor should desk reject.

If no, the Associate Editor recommends reject to the Area Editor by sending a short report that explains his or her reasoning. If yes, the Associate Editor passes on to two reviewers. In addition to asking the reviewers for their overall opinion, the Associate Editor may also ask the reviewers some specific questions that will be helpful to the overall decision. For example, the Associate Editor may ask for the proofs to be double-checked, for the methodological novelty of the proofs to be compared to the literature, for the simulations and numerics to be assessed for robustness, etc.

4. The default review time for reviewers to submit their review for first submissions is set at:
   1. 3 weeks for focused technical papers;
   2. 6 weeks for regular submissions;
   3. 4 months for lengthy submissions.

The above helps ensure the following goal response times to authors:

1. 2 months for focused technical papers;
2. 3 months for regular submissions;
3. 5 months for lengthy submissions.

When a reviewer needs longer than the default review time, and the Associate Editor feels the expertise of that reviewer is important, then the review time may be extended. The review time for revisions — particularly for lengthy submissions — is expected to be shorter.

5. After receiving the reviewer reports, the Associate Editor writes a summary report, together with his or her own evaluation and recommendation. The summary report should provide general guidance to the authors regarding how to navigate the review comments. Since in general only 2 reviewers are invited, if the reviewer opinion conflicts, then the Associate Editor has the responsibility to resolve the tie. Even if the 2 reviewers are in agreement, the Associate Editor has the right and responsibility to disagree (either positively or negatively) when the Associate Editor feels something is off with reviewer judgement.
6. After receiving the Associate Editor and reviewer reports, the Area Editor makes a decision and ensures that the review team is all on the same page regarding the path forward for the paper. The Area Editor has the right and responsibility to disagree (either positively or negatively) with the Associate Editor, and should schedule discussion with the Associate Editor and review team when there is disagreement. Finally, the Area Editor sends an email to the authors notifying them of the decision.
7. There are five possible decisions:
   1. Accept. The paper is then passed to the EiC. The EiC checks that the review process is solid.
   2. Minor Revision. There is an implicit contract with the authors that the paper will be accepted in the next round, provided the authors respond to the review team comments in good faith.
   3. Major Revision. The paper is on a path to publication, but there is a significant amount of work to be done. The Area and Associate Editors will give guidance to the authors regarding how to navigate the review team comments. The expectation is that if the comments are suitably addressed, then the paper will move to the minor revision stage in the next round, or be accepted.
   4. Reject and Resubmit (to be used sparingly). The paper has some good ideas, but there is no clear path to publication. Enough work must be done on the paper that any resubmitted paper essentially looks like a new paper. The Area Editor has discretion regarding whether or not to use the same review team for the resubmission.
   5. Reject. No resubmission is allowed.