Communicate your review by O. C. Ferrell:
contextualize the research
convey the key message of the research
be positive about what was done well
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:
Paths to improve the research
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 email@example.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.
For detail, read here
JM articles should have:
Real-world marketing topics and problems (i.e., relevance to stakeholders)
Validity (i.e., good approximation of the truth)
Expected quality review process:
Reviewers should have reasonable knowledge
No conflicts of interests
- Interesting and important
- Empirical rigor
- Conceptual rigor
Not a vote-counting exercise (i.e., number of rejections from reviewers)
Respect author’s original objective
Explain fatal flaws
Timely: reviewers (three weeks after the review invitation) and AEs (within two weeks)
2 single-spaced pages
reviewers number their comments.
A short synopsis of the paper and its findings
Evaluate the contribution: Suggestions to improve contribution(if needed)
Identify major strengths, weaknesses, recommendations regarding
Minor comments and suggestions