agentsclimarketplace

Ijoc review process

Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/INFORMS-Journal-on-Computing-Skills/skills/ijoc-review-process

Use when calibrating expectations for the INFORMS Journal on Computing (IJOC) review cycle — the Area-Editor desk-reject gate, the undisclosed associate editor, single-blind reviewing, decision types, and whether a sibling journal fits better. Sets expectations and strategy; it does not draft the rebuttal (see ijoc-rebuttal).From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ijoc-review-process

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

SKILL.md

4.8 KB, ~1.0k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Review Process (ijoc-review-process)

When to trigger

  • You are about to submit and want to understand the gates and likely timeline
  • A submission has been silent and you are unsure where it sits in the IJOC pipeline
  • A decision arrived (reject / major / minor) and you need to read it correctly before responding
  • You are weighing whether IJOC or a sibling (Operations Research, Management Science, MPC, IJOO) is the better home after a tough first round

How the IJOC pipeline actually works

The cycle has a structure worth planning around (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准):

  1. Area-Editor suitability gate. Your chosen technical area routes the paper to an Area Editor who first judges fit. Roughly 40% are desk-rejected here for being out of scope, computing-light, or mismatched to the area. This gate rewards the ijoc-topic-selection and ijoc-contribution-framing work: an Area Editor who cannot see the computational advance in the abstract and intro will not send it out.
  2. Associate-editor handling — blind to you. Survivors are assigned an associate editor who manages the review and whose identity is never revealed to authors. You cannot tailor a response to "the AE"; write to the report content, not the person.
  3. Single-blind refereeing. Reviewers see your names; you do not see theirs. Reviewers are typically active researchers in your area who will know the current methods and may try to reproduce your results from the deposit — another reason the GitHub artifact must actually run.
  4. Decision. Outcomes are the usual reject / major revision / minor revision / accept. A major revision on a computational paper often means re-running experiments (more instances, fairer baselines, more seeds), not just rewriting.

Reading an IJOC decision letter

Triage every point by what it really demands:

Referee themeWhat it usually meansWhere to fix
"comparison is unfair / baseline weak"re-run against the SOTA / current solver, symmetric tuningijoc-data-analysis
"instances cherry-picked / too small"full standard set + scalingijoc-data-analysis
"contribution unclear / incremental"sharpen the claim and positioningijoc-contribution-framing / ijoc-literature-positioning
"no guarantee / correctness unproven"add validity/complexity argumentijoc-theory-development
"cannot reproduce"fix the deposit; align results to scriptsijoc-data-analysis
"out of scope for this area"re-argue fit, or consider sibling/area changeijoc-topic-selection

Sibling fit after a hard round

If the recurring objection is "the contribution is the OR model, not the computing," the paper may belong at Operations Research; if it is "this is optimization theory," at INFORMS Journal on Optimization; if it is "pure MP-computation," at Mathematical Programming Computation. Conversely, a strong computational result rejected elsewhere as "too applied/computational" may fit IJOC well. Decide before burning a revision cycle on the wrong venue.

Checklist

  • Abstract/intro make the computational advance visible to clear the Area-Editor gate
  • You expect to write to report content, not to a named AE
  • The deposit runs, in case a referee tries to reproduce it
  • Each decision-letter point is triaged to the owning skill and classed as re-experiment vs. rewrite
  • A major revision plan budgets compute time for re-running experiments
  • The sibling-fit question is answered if scope objections recur

Anti-patterns

  • Treating the Area-Editor gate as a formality and submitting a computing-light paper
  • Trying to guess and flatter the (undisclosed) associate editor
  • Submitting a deposit that does not run, then being surprised by a "cannot reproduce" report
  • Reading a "major revision" on experiments as a rewrite job and not budgeting compute
  • Re-submitting to IJOC when the persistent objection says the paper belongs at a sibling

Output format

【Journal】INFORMS Journal on Computing
【Skill】ijoc-review-process
【Stage】pre-submit / in-review / decision-received
【Gate read】Area-Editor fit risk; AE undisclosed; single-blind noted
【Decision triage】point → owning skill → re-experiment vs. rewrite
【Compute budget】re-run plan if major revision
【Sibling check】stay IJOC / consider OR / MS / MPC / IJOO
【Next skill】ijoc-rebuttal

What ships with it

Read from the repository

Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 325,949. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.