Reconsideration of Editorial Decisions
The Journal of Monetary Economics editors recognize that there are situations in which authors feel that the referee report on their manuscript or the editorial decision on their manuscript has not accurately assessed its contribution. Such requests occur on a very small fraction of manuscripts: we handle more than 300 decisions per year and it is unusual for us to receive more than a handful of requests each year. When manuscripts are rejected, It is much more common for authors to indicate that referee reports and editorial decisions provided them with new research leads.
The JME has a standard procedure for handling requests for reconsideration.
First, we ask the authors to prepare a letter that can be transmitted to the referee, providing a brief statement of their case for the manuscript and expressing their concerns about the referee report.
Second, we ask that the authors prepare a letter that can be transmitted to the editor or associate editor handling the manuscript.
Third, we send the first letter to the referee, asking whether he wishes to revise his report in light of the author's expressed concerns.
Fourth, the editor initially assigned to handle the manuscript reviews the folder and corresponds with the author, indicating whether the manuscript decision will be reconsidered and, if so, outlining what steps will be taken. At times, this involves solicitation of a new referee report. In some such situations, the editor handling the manuscript may ask for the advice of other editors, so that authors may receive joint correspondence.
More generally, we value feedback from authors about referee reports and editorial decisions. The new EES system allows us to "grade" reviewers and we welcome your comments, positive and negative.
It is important to stress, though, that any journal cannot publish all papers that are logically correct, constitute advances on the literature, and concern interesting topics. Decisions must be made and authors do not always agree with referees and editors. Certainly that has been our own experience as authors!
We also understand that the process of research evaluations is an emotional one. Our first joint paper was submitted to a major economics journal, received positive reports and a request for a revision, and then received an additional round of positive reports. However, during the handling of our paper, a new editor had taken charge and rejected it with a few skeptical comments. More than 20 years later, we still remember that experience when we write our editorial decisions.
We also immediately sent the manuscript to another journal, where we were fortunate than an editor was enthusiastic: Robert Clower, who was far from an adherent of real business cycles.
Robert King Charles Plosser
rking@bu.edu plosser@simon.rochester.edu
R.G. King and C.I. Plosser, "Money, Credit and Prices in a
Real Business Cycle", American Economic Review, June 1984,
363-380. Reprinted in two volumes of the International Library of Critical
Writings in Economics: T. Mayer, ed., Monetary Theory,