Understanding the Review Process (hrm-review-process)

When to trigger

Before submitting, to calibrate timeline and decision-type expectations
A decision letter arrived and you need to interpret it (R&R vs. reject; major vs. minor)
You want to know how much weight the action editor vs. reviewers carry
You are planning a revision strategy before drafting the response (then go to hrm-rebuttal)

How HRM review works (durable norms; verify specifics on the official site)

EIC fit-and-relevance screen. The Editor-in-Chief decides whether a paper meets the journal's quality and relevance bar before it is sent out. A paper missing either half of the dual contribution — a scholarly advance or a practical implication — is desk-rejected here. This is the single biggest filter at HRM.
Routing. Papers that pass are assigned to an associate/action editor in the relevant domain (strategic HRM, micro/OB, employment relations, etc.).
Double-blind peer review. Typically several reviewers, who cannot see author identities, evaluate the contribution, the design rigor (multilevel structure, CMB, endogeneity, construct validity), and the practice payoff. Anonymization failures can derail this stage.
Action-editor synthesis. The action editor weighs the reviews, forms an independent judgment, and writes the decision letter. The editor's letter — not a vote count — drives the outcome.
Decision. Common outcomes: reject; reject with encouragement to resubmit as new; major revision (R&R); minor revision; (rarely) accept. First-round acceptance is essentially unheard of.

Editorial team, exact timelines, and policies change. As of 2026-06, Co-Editors-in-Chief are Fang Lee Cooke and Shaun Pichler (Co-EIC from Jan 2025) (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). Verify the current team and turnaround on the official Wiley page; the norms above are durable.