It is important to note that this focus was evident even in reviews where the reviewer was recommending that the manuscript be rejected. In a nontrivial number of cases, cranky evaluations are produced by reviewers who purport to know who the author is and the targets of these guesses are rarely graduate students.
While there will never be a definitive how-to manual for reviewing, I thought it would be nice if our field could identify some of the best practices in reviewing.
All research has weaknesses. Get this outline in a template Giving Feedback Giving feedback is hard. With that idea in mind, I asked a number of current and former editors at journals in organizational theory and sociology to comment about what they think makes a good review.
It is important to emphasize that the best reviews follow up critical commentary with concrete suggestions on how to improve a paper—both analytically and theoretically. Bear in mind that there will be the opportunity to direct separate comments to both the editor and author.
Are some of the hypotheses more interesting, so that a stronger paper can be made by improving the reasoning for them and deleting the rest? Even if you decide not to identify yourself in the review, you should write comments that you would be comfortable signing your name to.
The published papers could be wrong, and user-manual descriptions of what a method does are often not enough to know when it is appropriate.
Reviewing is a time-intensive process — writing a review report can be almost as much work as writing a manuscript! When the reviews are received, the action editors use this information as guidance and advice in reaching their editorial decision.
In both cases, we might get the message, but without ever understanding what made our reviews great or not so great. When the action editors receive reviews, they also rate them as to quality on a 1—5 scale according to the following: 5 — Outstanding review exceptionally high quality : This is reserved for cases where the review is of such high quality that the individual should be a candidate for JIBS Best Reviewer Award.