Writing a good reviewWriting a good revieworor

Don’t do onto others as they Don’t do onto others as they have done onto youhave done onto you

Anne M. MagroAnne M. MagroUniversity of OklahomaUniversity of Oklahoma

Jane KennedyJane KennedyUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington

Game planGame plan

• Role of the reviewerRole of the reviewer• Goals of the review processGoals of the review process• Process of writing the review Process of writing the review • Content of the review commentsContent of the review comments• Communication styleCommunication style• Reviewing on subsequent roundsReviewing on subsequent rounds• Responding to a review you receiveResponding to a review you receive

Role of the reviewerRole of the reviewer

• Want to help the editor make a Want to help the editor make a decision and improve the paper!decision and improve the paper!

• AdvisorAdvisor• EducatorEducator• ContributorContributor

Goals of the review processGoals of the review process

• Identify strengthsIdentify strengths

• Identify weaknessesIdentify weaknesses

• Contribute to improved quality Contribute to improved quality

Process of writing the reviewProcess of writing the review

• General rules:General rules:

– Reviews take time.Reviews take time.

– Reviews often require research.Reviews often require research.

– Be timely.Be timely.

– Be thorough.Be thorough.

Content of the review reportContent of the review report

• Strengths and weaknesses in:Strengths and weaknesses in:

– ContributionContribution

– TheoryTheory

– Research designResearch design

– Data analysisData analysis

– Interpretation of results/conclusions Interpretation of results/conclusions drawndrawn

Content of the reviewContent of the review

• For problems identified:For problems identified:– What is the issue?What is the issue?– Why is it a problem?Why is it a problem?– How can it be addressed?How can it be addressed?

• Focus on issues that if addressed will increase the Focus on issues that if addressed will increase the likelihood of publication or those that preclude likelihood of publication or those that preclude publication.publication.

• Think through alternative explanations Think through alternative explanations thoroughly.thoroughly.

Communication styleCommunication style

• Quality of communication matters. Quality of communication matters.

– Be constructive.Be constructive.

– Be clear.Be clear.

– Be nonconfrontational.Be nonconfrontational.

• Recognize issues of taste. Recognize issues of taste.

• Address author or paper?Address author or paper?

Reviewing on subsequent roundsReviewing on subsequent rounds

• How long can it go before rejection?How long can it go before rejection?

• Split decisionsSplit decisions

What about the other end?What about the other end?

• Circulate your paper before you submit to a journalCirculate your paper before you submit to a journal• Don’t submit a paper until you know it is ready (you Don’t submit a paper until you know it is ready (you

may get the wrong feedback if you submit to “get may get the wrong feedback if you submit to “get feedback!”)feedback!”)

• Choose the outlet wisely (your references should give an Choose the outlet wisely (your references should give an idea of the appropriate outlet)idea of the appropriate outlet)

• The introduction is critical– don’t underestimate itThe introduction is critical– don’t underestimate it• Don’t promise more than the paper deliversDon’t promise more than the paper delivers• Make sure you check spelling and references– first Make sure you check spelling and references– first

impressions are important.impressions are important.

When you get it back….When you get it back….

• The reviewer does not hate you personally– really!The reviewer does not hate you personally– really!• Read it and put it away for a few daysRead it and put it away for a few days• Take it out again and see if you can handle making Take it out again and see if you can handle making

notes about what you can do based on the commentsnotes about what you can do based on the comments• Put it away again??Put it away again??• Show the editor’s letter to a senior colleague with Show the editor’s letter to a senior colleague with

experience in interpreting lettersexperience in interpreting letters• Revise the paper for this or another journalRevise the paper for this or another journal

Revising the paperRevising the paper

• Don’t assume the reviewer is stupid (you likely Don’t assume the reviewer is stupid (you likely didn’t communicate well)didn’t communicate well)

• They (like you) have limited time – don’t waste it or They (like you) have limited time – don’t waste it or make them work too hard.make them work too hard.

• Be sure you address their comments in the paper to Be sure you address their comments in the paper to the extent possible rather than arguing only in the extent possible rather than arguing only in memos to the reviewermemos to the reviewer

• Respond to the reviewer clearly and concisely about Respond to the reviewer clearly and concisely about the issue.the issue.

• Believe good papers get published most of the time!Believe good papers get published most of the time!