Menu

Individual skill

jcp-review-process

0upvotes

Use when calibrating expectations for the Journal of Consumer Psychology (JCP) review cycle — desk-screen odds, the area-editor/reviewer model, what "process is thin" really means, R&R norms, and the new-studies expectation. Sets expectations and revision strategy; the response letter itself is jcp-rebuttal.

Journal-of-Consumer-Psychology-Skills/skills/jcp-review-process/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit 932eb23331721b16e967c59f093781be1928b498

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
No
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
Yes
Observed behavior
Not checked yet
Last checked
Nov 9, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings)
1,411
Repository last updated
Sep 27, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# Review Process (jcp-review-process)

## When to trigger

- A decision letter arrived and you must read what the editor actually wants
- You are weighing whether the requested revision is feasible (new studies?) or a polite reject
- You want realistic odds before submitting, or before investing in another study
- Reviewers raise the same complaint ("the process isn't established") and you need a strategy
- Deciding whether to push back, comply, or withdraw and reroute to a sibling

## How JCP review works

A JCP submission goes to the **editor** (EiC **David Wooten** through 2026, with Co-Editors Rajesh Bagchi and Aparna Labroo; **Bagchi becomes EiC for 2027–2029** — verified 2026-06-22, re-verify the masthead), who may **desk-reject** for fit (no psychological process, wrong outlet, out of scope) or assign it to an **area/associate editor** who recruits reviewers — typically several SCP-community experts under **double-blind** review (confirm the exact model on the current Wiley/myscp author page). The editor synthesizes the reviews into a decision: reject, **major revision (R&R)**, minor revision, or accept. As at peer experimental journals, the most common positive outcome is a **major revision**, and at JCP that very often means **running new studies** — not just reanalysis — to nail down the process.
Back to top