What a revise-and-resubmit decision really means
A revise-and-resubmit is an invitation, not an acceptance. Learn how the common editorial decisions differ, what an R&R does and does not signal, and how to plan your next step.
Peer Review6 min read
Thoughtful research. Clearer manuscripts. More confident submissions.
Business & Economics: Management, finance, economics, entrepreneurship, marketing, and organizational studies.
Editors in management, finance, and economics typically screen a manuscript for two things: a clearly stated contribution to an ongoing conversation in the literature, and a research design that supports the claims. A strong dataset or a novel setting rarely carries a paper on its own if the theoretical framing or the empirical identification is unclear.

The field also has publishing habits of its own. Economists often circulate working papers long before journal publication, review can run to several rounds, and a growing number of journals require replication packages. Business schools may weigh journals using lists such as ABDC or the Academic Journal Guide, which affects where authors aim, though those lists are institutional tools rather than measures of fit.

Management and organizational journals expect authors to say which theory they extend, challenge, or connect, and why that matters. A contribution statement that names the specific conversation and what changes in it is more persuasive than a general claim of novelty.
Reviewers in economics and finance focus on whether the design identifies the effect claimed: sources of variation, endogeneity, selection, measurement, and the assumptions behind instrumental variables, difference-in-differences, or regression discontinuity designs. Those assumptions should be stated and tested where possible, not left for reviewers to infer.
Expect requests for alternative samples, specifications, controls, and estimators. Placing the most important checks in the main text and the rest in an online appendix, with clear cross-references, helps reviewers see which results carry the argument.
Posting to series such as NBER Working Papers (external link), SSRN, or RePEc is common in economics and finance; NBER describes its papers as circulated before peer review for discussion and comment. Policies on prior circulation vary, particularly among journals that use double-blind review, so check before submitting a widely circulated version.
Some journals require data and code at submission or before acceptance. The AEA Data and Code Availability Policy (external link) asks authors to deposit replication materials with a README before acceptance, with provisions for restricted data. Building the replication package alongside the paper is easier than reconstructing it afterward.
Reviewers often ask “so what?” when a paper tests a known relationship in a new setting without explaining what the setting reveals. Stating why the context matters theoretically, not only empirically, addresses this early.
Economics readers expect the question, approach, main result, and contribution within the first few pages. Introductions that build slowly through background can lose an editor before the contribution appears.
Describing correlations as effects, or moving between predictive and causal language, invites methodological objections. Matching each claim to what the design can support is a common revision request.
A revision can run through several rounds, during which data, coauthors, and the literature all change. Tracking every reviewer request and how it was addressed keeps later rounds manageable; see what a revise-and-resubmit decision really means.
Rebuilding code and documentation after acceptance can delay publication, and a journal may find that results do not reproduce from the deposited files. Templates such as the Social Science Data Editors’ README (external link) help structure the package from the start.
More on this in how to choose a journal beyond its impact factor.
Clarifies contribution statements, introductions, and the link between theory, hypotheses, and empirical design.
Compares economics, finance, and management journals by scope, paradigm, review timelines, and data policies, alongside any lists your institution uses.
Organizes responses across long, multi-round revisions, tracking each reviewer request and where the paper changed.
Helps plan the sequence from working paper to journal submission, including what to circulate, when, and how to prepare replication materials.
Official guidance worth reading alongside your target journal’s instructions.
A revise-and-resubmit is an invitation, not an acceptance. Learn how the common editorial decisions differ, what an R&R does and does not signal, and how to plan your next step.
Peer Review6 min read
A clear response letter answers every comment, shows exactly what changed and where, and handles disagreement with evidence. Here is a method that keeps the letter and manuscript in step.
Peer Review6 min read
Impact factor is one signal among many. This framework covers scope, readership, editorial policies, indexing, fees, and warning signs so you can build a shortlist you can defend.
Journal Selection8 min read
Not every rejection means the same thing. Reading the decision letter closely tells you whether to revise, retarget, appeal, or resubmit, and what to fix first.
Peer Review7 min read
In economics this is common, and many journals consider papers that have circulated through NBER, SSRN, RePEc, or departmental series. Policies vary more among management journals that rely on double-blind review, so check the journal’s instructions and disclose earlier versions where asked.
Lists such as ABDC and the Academic Journal Guide may matter for your institution’s evaluation, so consulting them is reasonable. They do not measure whether a journal fits your paper, and ratings change between editions. Use them alongside scope, readership, review practice, and indexing verified in the official databases.
Usually the data, or instructions for obtaining them; all code needed to reproduce the tables and figures; and a README that maps each output to the code that produces it, with software versions and expected run times. The AEA policy (external link) is a useful reference even for journals with lighter requirements.
The two fields differ in theory, methods, and writing conventions, and so do the manuscripts within them. Whether support is suitable for your paper is confirmed during consultation, based on its topic, methods, and target journal, before any scope is agreed. Tell us about your paper to begin.
Working on something specific?
Tell us the topic and the journal you have in mind. We confirm fit before proposing anything.
Ask about your manuscriptTell us the topic, the study design, and where you hope to submit. We’ll confirm whether we can help well before proposing anything.