32 Review Process
Communicate your review by O. C. Ferrell:
-
Paragraph
contextualize the research
convey the key message of the research
be positive about what was done well
-
Paragraph:
Is the paper well written, interesting and important?
Are the methods, data, etc. appropriate?
Does the data support the findings?
-
Paragraphs: Numbers, topics-examples of an issue:
Factual errors
Invalid arguments
length/journal guidance
Paths to improve the research
Why review?
Contribution/ Give back to the community
Get to the fore front of current research
Understand what a strong paper looks like
Documenting your reviews
Use publons.com to document manuscripts you reviewed for promotion and CV
to verify your review, send the “thank you for reviewing” email to reviews@publons.com
The review process:
-
Journals always look for reviewers
- Get involved and email your CV to editor, or area editor.
Do not wait to answer whether you review or not.
Responding to reviews
Turn around in 3 months
R & R: reject and resubmit (new). The turn around will be sent to a new set of reviewers
R & R: review and resubmit.
32.1 Review at JM
For data replication submission, read here
For detail, read here
JM articles should have:
New knowledge
Real-world marketing topics and problems (i.e., relevance to stakeholders)
Validity (i.e., good approximation of the truth)
Expected quality review process:
Fairness
Reviewers should have reasonable knowledge
No conflicts of interests
-
Consistency
- Interesting and important
- Empirical rigor
- Conceptual rigor
- Relevance
- Constructive
- Risk-taking
Not a vote-counting exercise (i.e., number of rejections from reviewers)
-
Responsible
Respect author’s original objective
Explain fatal flaws
Privacy
Timely: reviewers (three weeks after the review invitation) and AEs (within two weeks)
Roadmap
Format
2 single-spaced pages
reviewers number their comments.
-
Suggested structure:
A short synopsis of the paper and its findings
Evaluate the contribution: Suggestions to improve contribution(if needed)
-
Identify major strengths, weaknesses, recommendations regarding
conceptual
empirical
Readability
Minor comments and suggestions
32.2 Review Process Back end
When you submit an article
Plagiarism check
Repeat submission check
An editor reviews the paper for suitability (might be desk-reject)
An area/associate editor is assigned
Reviewers (2-3) are assigned
Reviewers are chosen based on
your reference list
your suggested list of reviewers
the editor’s knowledge of the domain
Candidate reviewers that declined to review
web search
a publisher’s database