This document defines the explicit criteria for Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject decisions, for use by eic_agent and editorial_synthesizer_agent.
Definition: The paper can be published without further review.
Criteria: - Average score across all universal dimensions >= 4.0 - No dimension scores below 3.0 - At least 3/4 reviewers recommend Accept or Minor Revision - No unresolved major academic issues
Conditions: - May include minor copyediting suggestions - May require final formatting adjustments - Does not need to be sent for review again
Typical scenarios: - Paper has undergone multiple revision rounds, all issues resolved - Rare first-pass acceptance (< 5% of submissions at top-tier journals)
Definition: The paper is fundamentally acceptable and can be published after limited modifications; typically does not need to be sent for review again after revision.
Criteria: - Average score across all universal dimensions >= 3.5 - No dimension scores below 2.5 - At least 3/4 reviewers recommend Accept or Minor Revision - Issues can be resolved within 2-4 weeks - Modifications do not involve restructuring core arguments or methods
Typical revision items: - Supplementing a small number of references - Clarifying certain methodology description details - Improving clarity of argumentation - Correcting citation format - Adding discussion of limitations - Adjusting conclusion wording (avoiding overclaiming)
Response requirements: - Authors must respond to reviewer comments item by item - After revision, reviewed by EIC (usually not sent for external review again) - Revision deadline: 2-4 weeks
Definition: The paper has potential but has significant issues, requiring substantial revision followed by re-review.
Criteria: - Universal dimension average score between 2.5-3.4 - Some dimensions may score below 2.5 (but not fatal) - At least 2/4 reviewers recommend Major Revision or better - Issues are serious but fixable (not fundamental design flaws) - Revision requires 6-8 weeks of work
Typical revision items: - Re-analyzing data (additional analysis or correcting errors) - Substantially rewriting literature review (missing key references) - Supplementing additional data collection - Reorganizing paper structure - Correcting significant methodological flaws - Strengthening theoretical framework application - Adding robustness checks
Response requirements: - Authors must write a detailed point-by-point response letter - After revision, sent for re-review (may go back to original reviewers or new reviewers) - Revision deadline: 6-8 weeks - Typically a maximum of 2 rounds of Major Revision allowed
Definition: The paper is not suitable for publication in this journal, even with revision.
Criteria (meeting any one may trigger Reject consideration): - Universal dimension average score < 2.5 - Any core dimension (methodology, evidence) = 1 - At least 3/4 reviewers recommend Reject - Fundamental unfixable issues exist
Reject subtypes:
| Subtype | Description | Suggestion |
|---|---|---|
| Reject — Out of Scope | Topic not within journal scope | Recommend more suitable journals |
| Reject — Fundamental Flaw | Fatal flaw in research design | Suggest redesigning the research |
| Reject — Insufficient Contribution | Lacks originality or incremental contribution | Suggest how to strengthen contribution |
| Reject — Premature | Paper not yet mature enough | Suggest specific improvement directions |
| Reject — Resubmit Encouraged | Has potential but needs fundamental restructuring | Provide detailed restructuring suggestions |
Even with Reject, must: - Affirm the paper's merits - Provide specific improvement suggestions - Recommend more suitable journals (if it's a scope issue) - Maintain professional, respectful tone
| EIC | R1 | R2 | R3 | -> Recommended Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accept | Accept | Accept | Accept | Accept |
| Accept | Accept | Accept | Minor | Accept (with suggestions) |
| Accept | Accept | Minor | Minor | Minor Revision |
| Accept | Minor | Minor | Minor | Minor Revision |
| Minor | Minor | Minor | Minor | Minor Revision |
| Minor | Minor | Minor | Major | Minor-to-Major (depends on specific issues) |
| Minor | Minor | Major | Major | Major Revision |
| Minor | Major | Major | Major | Major Revision |
| Major | Major | Major | Major | Major Revision |
| Major | Major | Major | Reject | Major Revision (last chance) |
| Major | Major | Reject | Reject | Reject (resubmit encouraged) |
| Major | Reject | Reject | Reject | Reject |
| Reject | Reject | Reject | Reject | Reject |
Split Decision (evenly divided): - Example: Accept + Accept + Reject + Reject - EIC (or synthesizer) needs to deeply analyze the cause of disagreement - Lean toward conservative strategy: Major Revision, requiring the author to respond to the Reject side's comments - May consider inviting a fifth reviewer
One Outlier (one unusual opinion): - Example: Minor + Minor + Minor + Reject - Carefully examine the Reject rationale - If the rationale is valid and others missed it, escalate to Major Revision - If the rationale is insufficient, maintain Minor Revision but mention the opinion in the Decision Letter
| Confidence | Impact on Decision |
|---|---|
| 5 (Very High) | This reviewer's opinion carries the highest weight |
| 4 (High) | Standard weight |
| 3 (Medium) | Standard weight, but reduced in case of disagreement |
| 2 (Low) | For reference only, not used as a decisive opinion |
| 1 (Very Low) | Ignore this reviewer's recommendation (but retain specific comments) |
| Situation | Severity | Handling |
|---|---|---|
| Methodology has fatal flaw (R1 score = 1) | Critical | Even if other dimensions are excellent, lean toward Reject |
| Major literature review omission (R2 score = 2) | Serious | Major Revision, require supplementation |
| Cross-disciplinary perspective overlooked (R3 score = 2) | Moderate | Minor/Major, depends on other dimensions |
| Poor writing quality (score = 2) | Minor | Does not affect academic decision, but require language revision |
| Round | Expectation | Handling |
|---|---|---|
| R1 (First revision) | Respond to all reviewer comments | Send for re-review or EIC review |
| R2 (Second revision) | Respond to residual issues | Usually EIC makes final decision |
| R3 (Third revision) | Very rare, usually only handling formatting | EIC makes final decision |
| Situation | Ethical Handling |
|---|---|
| Author is your student/colleague | Must recuse or disclose the relationship |
| Paper's viewpoint is opposite to yours | Evaluate argument quality, not correctness of position |
| Paper uses your theory but misunderstands it | May point it out but cannot require citation of your own work |
| Suspected data fabrication | Report to EIC; journal initiates investigation procedure |
| Paper is similar to your ongoing research | Disclose potential conflict of interest |