Editorial Decision Standards — Criteria for Editorial Decision Making
This document defines the explicit criteria for Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject decisions, for use by eic_agent and editorial_synthesizer_agent.
0. Decision Authority by Mode
| Mode | Decision engine | Working scale | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
full (sprint contract) |
Mechanical synthesizer over reviewer contract v2; the matrix below never overrides it | block/warn/pass + block_class |
Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject |
methodology-focus (sprint contract) |
Same mechanical engine, scoped to methods + presentation; no venue-fit dimension | same | four-value enum |
full / methodology-focus without a contract |
Synthesis Protocol + the qualitative criteria and recommendation matrix in this file | reviewer recommendations | four-value enum |
re-review |
#576 three-gate contract: re_review_mode_protocol.md § Decision Derivation, recomputed by scripts/check_re_review_synthesis.py |
item verdicts (FULLY/PARTIALLY/NOT_ADDRESSED/MADE_WORSE/CANNOT_VERIFY) | Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / user_review_required (Reject is not a Stage 3' decision) |
quick |
Journal-Fit Reviewer assessment only; advisory, not an editorial decision | — | signal |
guided |
Issue-list dialogue; no editorial decision letter | — | — |
calibration |
Exact panel verdicts and criterion-bound judgements compared with a user-adjudicated target set; measurement-only | categorical judgements + four-value verdict enum | bounded error profile or directional readout |
Under a sprint contract, the mechanical synthesizer governs. This file's recommendation matrix is the no-contract path and cannot soften, harden, or override a fired contract action. There is no numerical total-score threshold for an editorial decision. In the no-contract path, the synthesizer must explain which anchored criteria and unresolved findings justify the recommendation; strengths in one dimension cannot arithmetically cancel a decision-bearing failure in another.
1. Decision Categories
Decision Symmetry and Register Independence (#574 B1)
These principles govern every category below:
- Symmetric evidence standards. An Accept conclusion and a Reject conclusion carry the same evidence burden: Accept requires positive, anchored verification that each criterion is met, exactly as Reject requires anchored evidence that criteria failed. Neither direction gets a wider margin of caution.
- Decisions follow criteria, not distributions. Review rigor comes from the venue's actual criteria and article-type expectations (Reviewer Configuration Card), never from acceptance-rate base rates or an expected decision distribution. Base rates describe other papers, not this one; a review round that produces more rejections is not thereby a better round.
- Register is independent of severity. Tone rules (respectful, constructive) govern WORDING only. They never lower a finding's severity or soften a decision, and adversarial or rigor-signaling framing never raises a severity or hardens a decision.
Accept
Definition: The paper can be published without further review.
Criteria:
- Every applicable core criterion is positively verified
- No unresolved decision-bearing weakness remains
- At least 3/4 reviewers recommend Accept or Minor Revision
- No unresolved major academic issues
Conditions:
- May include minor copyediting suggestions
- May require final formatting adjustments
- Does not need to be sent for review again
Typical scenarios:
- Paper has undergone multiple revision rounds, all issues resolved
- First-pass acceptance when the paper genuinely meets every criterion — the decision follows the criteria, never a frequency expectation (#574 B1: no base-rate anchoring, qualitative or numeric)
Minor Revision
Definition: The paper is fundamentally acceptable and can be published after limited modifications; typically does not need to be sent for review again after revision.
Criteria:
- The paper is fundamentally acceptable and remaining issues are limited
- No issue requires restructuring core arguments or methods
- At least 3/4 reviewers recommend Accept or Minor Revision
- Issues can be resolved within 2-4 weeks
- Modifications do not involve restructuring core arguments or methods
Typical revision items:
- Supplementing a small number of references
- Clarifying certain methodology description details
- Improving clarity of argumentation
- Correcting citation format
- Adding discussion of limitations
- Adjusting conclusion wording (avoiding overclaiming)
Response requirements:
- Authors must respond to reviewer comments item by item
- After revision, reviewed by the journal's handling editor (usually not sent for external review again)
- Revision deadline: 2-4 weeks
Major Revision
Definition: The paper has potential but has significant issues, requiring substantial revision followed by re-review.
Criteria:
- One or more material weaknesses require substantial revision
- The weaknesses are repairable rather than fatal
- At least 2/4 reviewers recommend Major Revision or better
- Issues are serious but fixable (not fundamental design flaws)
- Revision requires 6-8 weeks of work
Typical revision items:
- Re-analyzing data (additional analysis or correcting errors)
- Substantially rewriting literature review (missing key references)
- Supplementing additional data collection
- Reorganizing paper structure
- Correcting significant methodological flaws
- Strengthening theoretical framework application
- Adding robustness checks
Response requirements:
- Authors must write a detailed point-by-point response letter
- After revision, sent for re-review (may go back to original reviewers or new reviewers)
- Revision deadline: 6-8 weeks
- Typically a maximum of 2 rounds of Major Revision allowed
Reject
Definition: The paper is not suitable for publication in this journal, even with revision.
Criteria (meeting any one may trigger Reject consideration):
- A core criterion has a fundamental unfixable failure
- The paper cannot become suitable for this venue through revision
- At least 3/4 reviewers recommend Reject
- Fundamental unfixable issues exist
Reject subtypes:
| Subtype | Description | Suggestion |
|---|---|---|
| Reject — Out of Scope | Topic not within journal scope | Recommend more suitable journals |
| Reject — Fundamental Flaw | Fatal flaw in research design | Suggest redesigning the research |
| Reject — Insufficient Contribution | Lacks originality or incremental contribution | Suggest how to strengthen contribution |
| Reject — Premature | Paper not yet mature enough | Suggest specific improvement directions |
| Reject — Resubmit Encouraged | Has potential but needs fundamental restructuring | Provide detailed restructuring suggestions |
Even with Reject, must:
- Affirm genuine merits where they exist — do not manufacture praise to soften the decision (#574 A1/B1)
- Provide specific improvement suggestions
- Recommend more suitable journals (if it's a scope issue)
- Maintain professional, respectful tone
2. Decision Matrix
Decision Matrix Based on Reviewer Recommendations
| Journal-Fit Reviewer | R1 | R2 | R3 | -> Recommended Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accept | Accept | Accept | Accept | Accept |
| Accept | Accept | Accept | Minor | Accept (with suggestions) |
| Accept | Accept | Minor | Minor | Minor Revision |
| Accept | Minor | Minor | Minor | Minor Revision |
| Minor | Minor | Minor | Minor | Minor Revision |
| Minor | Minor | Minor | Major | Minor-to-Major (depends on specific issues) |
| Minor | Minor | Major | Major | Major Revision |
| Minor | Major | Major | Major | Major Revision |
| Major | Major | Major | Major | Major Revision |
| Major | Major | Major | Reject | Major Revision (last chance) |
| Major | Major | Reject | Reject | Reject (resubmit encouraged) |
| Major | Reject | Reject | Reject | Reject |
| Reject | Reject | Reject | Reject | Reject |
Special Situation Handling
Split Decision (evenly divided):
- Example: Accept + Accept + Reject + Reject
- The Journal-Fit Reviewer (or synthesizer) needs to deeply analyze the cause of disagreement
- Resolve on the arbitration principles (evidence first, expertise first). A genuinely unresolvable split records the dissent and routes the author to respond to it — revision is the vehicle for that response, not a policy of rounding splits toward the stricter verdict (#574 B1)
- May consider inviting a fifth reviewer
One Outlier (one unusual opinion):
- Example: Minor + Minor + Minor + Reject
- Carefully examine the Reject rationale
- If the rationale is valid and others missed it, escalate to Major Revision
- If the rationale is insufficient, maintain Minor Revision but mention the opinion in the Decision Letter
3. Reviewer uncertainty and competence scope
The 1–5 confidence field is retained only as a reviewer's self-reported scope and uncertainty disclosure. It is not a calibrated probability, expertise credential, vote, or mechanical weight. Never ignore, promote, or resolve a recommendation because of this number. Apply the named criterion to anchored manuscript evidence; preserve unresolved conflict and request additional expertise when the evidence or competence boundary requires it.
Cross-Dimension Decision Impact
Finding severity is transported from the reviewer cards (the Schema 6 enum, shared/handoff_schemas.md § Weakness Object) — this table assigns NO severities (#574 A3); it describes how criterion judgements bear on the DECISION only.
| Situation | Decision impact |
|---|---|
| Methodology owner identifies a fatal design flaw | Even if other dimensions are excellent, Reject is available |
| Domain owner identifies a repairable major literature omission | Major Revision, require supplementation |
| Perspective owner identifies a cross-disciplinary relevance failure | Minor or Major Revision, based on its decision impact |
| Journal-Fit Reviewer identifies a writing-and-structure weakness | Does not by itself invalidate the academic core; require language or structural revision |
4. Revision Round Policy
Standard Policy
| Round | Expectation | Handling |
|---|---|---|
| R1 (First revision) | Respond to all reviewer comments | Send for re-review or handling-editor review |
| R2 (Second revision) | Respond to residual issues | Usually the journal's handling editor makes the final decision |
| R3 (Third revision) | Very rare, usually only handling formatting | The journal's handling editor makes the final decision |
Upgrade/Downgrade Rules
- Minor Revision with incomplete revisions -> May escalate to Major Revision
- Major Revision with excellent revisions -> May downgrade to Minor Revision or Accept
- Major Revision with insufficient revisions -> May Reject (infinite revision cycles are not encouraged)
- Beyond 2 rounds of Major Revision -> Strongly recommend Accept or Reject, no further extension
5. Professional Ethics of Editorial Review
Reviewer Ethics
- Confidentiality: The review process and paper content are confidential
- Conflict of interest: Recuse if there is a collaborative or competitive relationship with the author
- Timeliness: Complete the review within the committed timeframe
- Constructiveness: Even when recommending Reject, provide constructive feedback
- Impartiality: No bias based on author's gender, race, institution, or nationality
- No plagiarism: Do not use unpublished ideas seen during review
- Appropriate language: Avoid personal attacks, sarcasm, or demeaning language
Editor Ethics
- Fair decision: Based on academic quality, not influenced by external pressure
- Transparent process: Decision letter must clearly explain the rationale
- Reasonable deadlines: Give authors sufficient revision time
- Appeal channel: Authors have the right to respond to or challenge review comments
- Consistent standards: Papers of similar quality should receive similar decisions
Ethical Considerations for Special Situations
| Situation | Ethical Handling |
|---|---|
| Author is your student/colleague | Must recuse or disclose the relationship |
| Paper's viewpoint is opposite to yours | Evaluate argument quality, not correctness of position |
| Paper uses your theory but misunderstands it | May point it out but cannot require citation of your own work |
| Suspected data fabrication | Report to the real journal's Editor-in-Chief (EIC); the journal initiates its investigation procedure |
| Paper is similar to your ongoing research | Disclose potential conflict of interest |