---

name: soctheory-review-process description: Use when you need to understand Sociological Theory (ST)'s double-anonymous peer review and interpret a decision letter focused on conceptual novelty and logical soundness. Explains the process and decision types; it does NOT draft the response document (that is soctheory-rebuttal).

Understanding ST's Peer Review (soctheory-review-process)

When to trigger

• You just received an ST decision letter and need to interpret it
• You do not know what ST review weights or expects of you
• You are deciding whether an R&R is worth pursuing and how to read the editor's signals
• You need to triage reviewer comments by what ST actually values

What ST review is (durable norms)

ST uses double-anonymous peer review through SAGE's web-based system (Manuscript Central, mc.manuscriptcentral.com/soct; 检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). The durable shape:

• A handling editor assigns the paper to reviewers expert in your theoretical tradition. (The editorial team rotates; recent ST guidance lists a multi-person editor group rather than a single EIC — confirm the current slate on the official ASA/ST page; do not name individuals from memory. See resources/official-source-map.md.)
• Reviews focus on what ST exists to protect: a genuine conceptual contribution (a new way of seeing — see soctheory-contribution-framing), conceptual clarity, internal consistency, the logical soundness of the argument, and engagement with the relevant tradition. Reviewers do not ask about identification, sample size, robustness, or measurement validity — those are ASR/AJS criteria.
• Decisions are commonly: Reject; Major Revision (R&R); Minor Revision; rarely an immediate Accept. Multiple rounds are normal for theory papers.
• An R&R is an invitation, not a promise; the bar can rise across rounds.

Desk-reject triggers specific to ST

The editor screens for fit and contribution before sending a paper out. Most common ST desk rejects: (1) "this is an empirical paper" (a hypothesis test in disguise); (2) a literature review with no original theoretical move; (3) an "application" of a theory that does not change the theory; (4) conceptual relabeling presented as new theory; (5) an argument with no engaged tradition; (6) length/format/masking failures or out-of-scope submissions (route to ASR/AJS, Sociological Methodology, ARS, or Theory and Society).

Reading the decision letter

Signal in the letter	What it usually means	Your move
"Promising but the contribution is unclear"	Theory may be sound but under-differentiated	Re-run soctheory-contribution-framing
"Propositions are not well argued"	Reasoning gaps between premises and claims	Re-run soctheory-argument-development
"Reads as a review of the literature"	No real theoretical move	Re-run soctheory-literature-positioning + soctheory-writing-style
"Concepts are unclear / overlap existing ones"	Conceptual clarity challenged	Re-run soctheory-theory-construction (definition/extension)
"Theory over-reaches"	Scope unstated	Re-run soctheory-boundary-conditions
"Doesn't engage tradition T"	Positioning gap	Re-run soctheory-literature-positioning
Editor flags specific reviewer points as essential	The editor's priorities	Address these first and most fully

Triaging reviewer comments

• Read the editor's letter as the master key. When reviewers disagree, the editor's framing tells you which issues are decision-critical.
• Separate substance comments from presentation comments. A missing mechanism or an undefended proposition outranks wording.
• Distinguish "the theory is wrong" from "the prose hid a sound argument." The first needs re-theorizing; the second needs soctheory-writing-style.
• Note conflicts between reviewers and plan to adjudicate them transparently (in soctheory-rebuttal).

Checklist

• Decision type identified (Reject / Major R&R / Minor)
• The editor's stated priorities extracted and ranked
• Each reviewer comment tagged: substance vs. presentation
• Comments mapped to the skill that addresses them (theory / argument / positioning / scope / contribution)
• Reviewer conflicts identified for transparent adjudication
• Realistic judgment made on whether the revision can meet the raised bar

Anti-patterns

• Treating an R&R as acceptance and making only cosmetic changes
• Ignoring the editor's letter and responding only to reviewers
• Reading reviews as "the reviewers will fix the theory for me"
• Promising to add an empirical test — ST neither wants nor accepts one
• Underestimating the number of rounds and over-claiming the revision is final

Output format

【Decision type】Reject / Major (R&R) / Minor
【Editor's priorities】ranked list
【Comment triage】substance: [...] | presentation: [...]
【Skill mapping】comment → soctheory-* skill
【Reviewer conflicts】[...]
【Go / no-go】pursue revision? rationale
【Next step】soctheory-rebuttal