Comment by pseudohadamard

I reviewed for Management Science years ago, once. Once. They had a ridiculously baroque review process with multiple layers of reviewing and looping within them where a paper gets re-reviewed over and over. I couldn't see any indication that it improved the quality over the standard three-people-review-then vote process. The papers I was given were pure numerology, long equations involving a dozen or more terms multiplied out where changing any one of them would throw the results in a completely different direction. And the weightings in some of the equations seemed pretty arbitrary, "we'll put a 0.4 in here because it makes the result look about right". It really didn't inspire confidence in the quality of the stuff they were publishing.

Now I'm not saying that everything in M-S is junk, but the small subset I was exposed to was.