New Editorial Board
The Review of Finance is delighted to announce the following changes to its Editorial Board, effective from 1 January. Alex Edmans, currently an Editor, will serve as Managing Editor together with Franklin Allen. Jules van Binsbergen will serve as a new Editor and Kenneth Ahern, Jonathan Berk, Patrick Bolton, Xavier Giroud, Todd Gormley, Sam Hartzmark, Kai Li, Alexander Ljungqvist, Lars Lochstoer, Andrey Malenko, Konstantin Milbradt, Christian Opp, Paige Ouimet, Amiyatosh Purnanandam, Luke Taylor and Pietro Veronesi will serve as new Associate Editors. We look forward to working with all new and existing members of the Editorial Board, and are very grateful to the outgoing Associate Editors for their distinguished service.
New Fee Structure and Introduction of Referee Payments
The Review of Finance announces the introduction of payments to referees and changes to the submission fee, with effect from 1 January, 2017. The changes are as follows:
- For regular submissions and resubmissions
- The submission fee will be €250 for EFA members and €300 for non-members
- The payment to a referee for an on-time report (within 4 weeks) is €150 plus €100 off a future submission
- If the paper is desk-rejected without an external report, all but €100 of the fee is refunded
- For fast-track submissions
- The submission fee will be €900 for a first submission and €500 for a resubmission
- The payment to a referee for an on-time report (within 1 week) is increased to €700 for a first submission and €350 for a resubmission
- If the editorial decision is more than 14 days after the submission, all but €300 of the submission fee (€250 for EFA members) is refunded
- For disputes, the submission fee will be €800 and the payment to a referee for an on-time report (within 4 weeks) is €400
- We are currently transitioning the RoF’s payments system to allow us to pay referees for regular submissions. While this transition is in progress, we aim to pay referees once every six months (e.g. by the end of June 2017 for all payments accumulated from January-June 2017). After the transition, we hope to pay referees on a more regular basis.
New Editorial Policy
We also announce the following clarifications of our editorial policy. These policies are already being implemented, but we thought that it would be useful to make a clear statement of them to authors.
- Publication standard
- We have a common policy, across all editors, as applying the same standards as a top-three finance journal. The following text (or a variant thereof) is included in the invitation letter to referees: “Please apply a similar standard to what you would apply to the top-three finance journals. Because we receive a very large number of manuscripts, we are interested in publishing only papers that make a substantial contribution to knowledge that is of interest to a general finance audience. Competent useful extensions and qualifications of previous work, or analyses of narrower questions, are best left to specialized journals.”
- Author primacy
- The following text is included in the invitation letter to referees: “If you believe the paper crosses the top-three bar and are recommending revision, please stratify your comments into (1) major concerns that the authors need to address for you to recommend publication, and (2) suggestions that you think will improve the paper but give the authors discretion as to whether to incorporate them.
- In other words, we ask referees to stratify scientifically convincing arguments for why a paper is unpublishable in its current form from suggestions. Ultimately, we recognize that the authors are responsible for the paper.
- For further details, please see Berk, Harvey, and Hirshleifer (JEP forthcoming): https://ssrn.com/abstract=2874625
- Number of revision rounds
- Our goal is to reach a decision on a manuscript at the second round. For manuscripts that are given an initial “revise-and-resubmit”, we aim to either give a rejection, acceptance, or conditional acceptance, at the second round. This is to minimize cases in which authors are put through several rounds of revision, and – related to the above - also to recognize that the authors are the owners of the paper, not the referees.
- There will be (hopefully rare) cases in which authors will have not been fully responsive to concerns raised by the referees in the first round and the paper remains scientifically inaccurate. In most such cases, a second-round decision would likely result in a rejection. In rare cases, we may send the paper to a third round to give the authors one final chance to respond to the concerns.
- If a referee raises new concerns in the second round that were not raised in the first round (and do not relate to changes in the paper between rounds), we will likely ignore those concerns.
- Desk rejections
- We sometimes receive papers that are well-motivated and have interesting results, but the topic is not the best match for a general-interest journal such as the Review of Finance. In such cases, we feel that the most helpful action is to clear the way for authors to submit it elsewhere by giving a quick desk-rejection decision, rather than delaying the authors by sending the paper to referees when the ultimate odds of success are likely to be low.
- In most cases, the desk rejection decision will be taken by the assigned Editor, but sometimes it will be informed by a Screen Report. These are reports from one of our most trusted referees (among them, our Associate Editors) who is an expert in the topic of the paper
- The refund applies only to desk rejection decisions without a Screen Report.
New Referee Awards and Referee Database
· Great referees are critical to the editorial process, but typically only noticed by the Editors. We are pleased to announce the introduction of Best Referee awards. They will be presented each year at the EFA annual meeting, together with the Best Paper awards.
· The Editorial Express database has an option for Editors to grade referees; however, to date it has not been used systematically. We have changed the editorial policy to require Editors to grade referees and provide comments before they can render a decision. We hope that this will create a comprehensive database of referee quality (in addition to speed, which is automatically tracked), helping ensure that we use the highest-quality reviewers for authors.
- The Review of Finance has been added to the FT 50 Journal List.
- The official 2015 impact factor for the Review of Finance is 2.026
- We congratulate the 2016 Best Paper prize winners:
- Spängler IQAM Prize Winner: LUIGI GUISO and ELIANA VIVIANO- “How Much Can Financial Literacy Help?”
- Pagano and Zechner Prize Winner: ALEXANDER POPOV and NEELTJE VAN HOREN – “Exporting Sovereign Stress: Evidence from Syndicated Bank Lending during the Euro Area Sovereign Debt Crisis”