Ijoc review process
Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. | 覆盖主流期刊的 Claude Code/Codex 期刊技能包,从选题、识别策略到表格规范与审稿回复全流程,助你快速发论文。
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ijoc-review-processAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
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).
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):
- 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-selectionandijoc-contribution-framingwork: an Area Editor who cannot see the computational advance in the abstract and intro will not send it out. - 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.
- 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.
- 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 theme | What it usually means | Where to fix |
|---|---|---|
| "comparison is unfair / baseline weak" | re-run against the SOTA / current solver, symmetric tuning | ijoc-data-analysis |
| "instances cherry-picked / too small" | full standard set + scaling | ijoc-data-analysis |
| "contribution unclear / incremental" | sharpen the claim and positioning | ijoc-contribution-framing / ijoc-literature-positioning |
| "no guarantee / correctness unproven" | add validity/complexity argument | ijoc-theory-development |
| "cannot reproduce" | fix the deposit; align results to scripts | ijoc-data-analysis |
| "out of scope for this area" | re-argue fit, or consider sibling/area change | ijoc-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