Review of Financial Studies Submission Process

The current public sources give several process-relevant signals authors should keep separate from Manusights interpretation:

In our pre-submission review work with RFS packages, we read the submission process as a connected finance-object: anonymous manuscript, cover page, abstract, editor letter, disclosure files, internet appendix, identification tables, code-and-data plan, and the first contribution sentence the editor sees. The paper may have a credible finance result and still be process-weak if those pieces reveal authorship, blur the top-three contribution, or defer a required policy request.

RFS process failures often start in the abstract. Review of Financial Studies authors usually worry about contribution strength, but the official process can return a paper for an abstract longer than 100 words. In RFS drafts we review, the abstract often tries to do too much: question, data, identification, results, mechanism, and contribution all in one paragraph. That creates two risks at once. It can violate the format rule, and it can hide the one top-three finance claim the editor needs to see.

Anonymization is a package-level test. RFS uses double-blind review, and Editorial Express notes that PDF metadata is cleansed, but the author still has to remove identifying information from the text. We see leaks in self-citations, acknowledgments, internet appendices, file names, SSRN references, GitHub links, seminar footnotes, data-use acknowledgments, and replication README files. The process fix is to audit the main PDF, cover page, appendix, tables, figures, and supplementary files as one anonymous package.

Code-and-data decisions belong at initial submission. The SFS guidelines say requests for exemptions from the code and data policy must be made when the paper is submitted. We treat this as process-critical for empirical finance papers. A paper built on licensed, proprietary, or confidential data needs a precise statement of what can be released, what cannot, why, and what pseudo or synthetic data can support verification.

Top-three routing still affects process. RFS, Journal of Finance, and JFE all sit at the top of finance, but the process signals differ. RFS has SFS fee, disclosure, review-policy, and code-sharing layers. A manuscript that is technically strong but framed like a JFE editor-fit submission or a JoF broad-association pitch can make the RFS editor's first-screen job harder. The process page exists because routing shows up in the upload record, not only in the paper's quality.

SFS currently reports a 2026 first-decision turnaround of 30 days median and 34 days mean for the 5/1/25 to 5/1/26 data window, plus a 120-day decision refund guarantee. Treat those as journal-level process context. A fast decision may be a desk rejection; a long path may include referee review, revision rounds, and code-and-data verification.

The process starts before Step 1. RFS is not only checking whether the files upload. The editor is checking whether the anonymous package reads like a top-three finance paper with clean process hygiene.

Before opening the record, have these pieces ready:

• cover page PDF with paper title, each author's name, affiliation, and email address
• anonymous manuscript PDF with title, abstract of no more than 100 words, double spacing, no author information, no acknowledgments, no endnotes, and font size 11 or larger
• internet appendix included in the manuscript PDF, clearly marked, and cleaned of author names
• cover letter that states the financial-economics contribution without leaking identity
• conflict and disclosure information ready for editor-assignment routing
• code-and-data policy position, including any exemption request made at initial submission
• fee path confirmed through SFS membership, income-economy category, waiver, conditional acceptance, appeal, or invited dual-submission route
• suggested editor and referee-avoidance notes prepared without creating conflict or identity leaks

The official SFS page says that if no confirmation email arrives, the submission did not enter the system and authors should return to the Editorial Express URL and click the final submit button. That is a process detail worth taking literally. A draft is not submitted because the files were uploaded; it is submitted when the final confirmation step completes.

The first check is partly mechanical and partly policy-driven. SFS states that submissions will not be reviewed until they follow the guidelines.

Typical early checks include:

• abstract no longer than 100 words
• manuscript double-spaced, maximum 28 lines per page, and font size 11 or larger
• separate cover page and anonymous manuscript PDF
• no author names, acknowledgments, file metadata, or identifying content in the manuscript text
• internet appendix included in the manuscript PDF rather than uploaded as a separate appendix file
• conflict-of-interest, data availability, ethics statement where relevant, and disclosure policy acknowledgment ready before final submission
• code-and-data policy exemption request made at submission if needed, with any non-public data limitation stated clearly
• fee payment, waiver, appeal, conditional-acceptance, or invited-dual-submission route selected correctly
• final submit button clicked and confirmation email received

A common process mistake is to treat the anonymous manuscript as the only blinded file. At RFS, the appendix, cover letter, code notes, data references, file names, and self-citation language can all leak identity. If the editor can infer the authors from a grant acknowledgment, SSRN link, conference version, or README path, the double-blind process is compromised before review starts.

The first editorial screen asks whether the paper deserves a full RFS review. For this journal, that means the editor is not only checking finance topic. The editor is checking whether the paper has top-three finance substance, whether the method or model can survive finance referees, and whether the process package gives reviewers a clean anonymous case.

The strongest packages make these signals agree:

For planning, treat the first 30 to 45 days as the normal decision-monitoring range, with complex or borderline papers taking longer. A fast desk rejection is not necessarily a judgment that the finance is bad. The SFS review policy explicitly says desk rejection can mean the editor believes the journal is not the right outlet.

A fast RFS decision is usually an editorial-screen outcome. It does not mean the paper received full double-blind referee review in a few days.

Read the status path:

• Submitted to decision with no referee materials: likely desk rejection, administrative return, or routing outcome.
• Editor assignment followed by a later decision: likely desk screen, editor read, or referee-invitation path.
• Long review period approaching 120 days: monitor the review/refund policy, but do not assume acceptance odds are improving.
• R&R decision: permission to submit a revision under the editor's road map, not an offer of acceptance.

The useful response to a fast return is not immediate resubmission. First separate format return, fit return, contribution return, identification concern, and wrong-top-three routing. Each has a different next action.

If the paper is sent out, RFS review is double-blind. Editorial Express says anonymity is maintained as the submission is transmitted to referees and that PDF metadata is cleansed, but authors still need to purge identifying information from the file text.

Reviewers often test:

• whether the paper's question matters to financial economics beyond one narrow setting
• whether the identification strategy, model, or empirical design can survive the obvious alternative explanations
• whether tables show economic magnitude, not only statistical significance
• whether the internet appendix supports rather than hides the hardest robustness checks
• whether the code-and-data plan is plausible if the paper reaches conditional acceptance
• whether RFS is the right top-three venue rather than Journal of Finance, JFE, Review of Finance, JFQA, or a field finance journal

The paper can be technically competent and still draw a hard rejection if the contribution sentence, design, and evidence package do not justify top-three finance referee time.

The review policy says the goal is to avoid moving the goal posts, but it also says half-hearted attempts to meet editor requirements will result in rejection. That makes the R&R process a workflow discipline problem: the response letter, anonymous referee letters, revised manuscript, appendix, and replication package need to answer the same road map.

In Manusights pre-submission work on RFS packages, we see four process failures before the referee debate starts.

• Abstract overstuffing: the 100-word abstract tries to include question, setting, method, result, mechanism, and contribution, but the actual top-three finance claim becomes unclear.
• Blinding leak in support files: the manuscript is anonymous, but the appendix, file names, self-citations, conference references, or README point to the authors.
• Code-policy deferral: the empirical design relies on data or code constraints, but the exemption or release plan is missing from the initial submission.
• Wrong top-three process posture: the paper is framed for JoF or JFE while the RFS record needs SFS policy compliance, contribution clarity, and editor-conflict discipline.

The abstract is compliant but not useful

Some abstracts are under 100 words but still fail the process job. They state the topic and result but not the financial-economics contribution. The process fix is to make the abstract do one thing: show why a top-three finance editor should keep reading.

The anonymous package leaks identity

The main manuscript may be clean while the appendix names a seminar, dataset agreement, SSRN draft, GitHub repository, author institution, or prior working paper. The process fix is to audit every file and every self-reference before upload.

The code-and-data plan arrives too late

For empirical RFS papers, the code-and-data process can matter long before acceptance. If proprietary data, licensed data, or confidential contract terms affect reproducibility, the exemption request belongs in the initial submission path. The process fix is to describe the release, pseudo-data, synthetic-data, and verification path early.

The paper is strong but routed with the wrong signal

RFS, Journal of Finance, and JFE overlap, but they are not identical author workflows. A paper framed around editor fit, broad AFA prestige, or field-journal specialization may confuse the RFS first screen. The process fix is to make the RFS-specific case: SFS flagship fit, finance contribution, anonymous package, disclosure discipline, and code-readiness.

Check whether your RFS abstract and contribution signal are process-ready →

Check whether your anonymous RFS package leaks identity →

Check whether your RFS code-and-data plan is ready before upload →

This guide tells you what the process tests before and after Editorial Express submission. The review tells you whether your paper passes that process screen before the upload becomes the editor's first impression. Manusights reviews are read by multiple expert reviewers, include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train models on submitted manuscripts.

Last verified July 2026 against SFS submit-a-paper guidance, SFS submission guidelines, SFS review/refund policy, RFS statistics, Editorial Express routing, RFS data-editor materials, and the current Manusights RFS cluster. Publisher instructions, fee schedules, portal fields, and code-sharing procedures can change, so use official SFS and Editorial Express pages for the live upload record.