Effective reviewing for conceptual journal submissions

Abstract

Peer reviewed academic journals, like AMS Review, live and die by their ability to obtain high quality reviews of submitted manuscripts. However, academics are increasingly pressed for time, needing to publish their research, teach their classes, and provide service to their Department, Faculty/College and University to support their careers in terms of retention, tenure, and promotion. Amidst these responsibilities, as a service to the Academy, academics also are expected to provide reviews of manuscripts in order to move the intellectual trajectory of the domain forward. High quality reviewing, though, takes cognitive energy and is time consuming, which then interferes with other academic responsibilities. For these reasons, editors of peer-reviewed academic journals are finding it more and more difficult to obtain a sufficient number of high-quality reviews to make good decisions about submissions in a timely manner. The purpose of this article is to help all reviewers, but especially those reviewing conceptual articles, provide a high-quality review. Specifically, this article first defines what constitutes a “high quality review,” and suggests how reviewing can aid an academic’s own research, writing and career. It then defines the behaviors needed for effective reviewing for all manuscripts, termed the 5 R’s: roles, responsibilities, responses, reactions, and respect. It then provides a reviewing template for conceptual articles, given the special difficulties of peer reviewing such articles, and closes with a few additional pieces of advice to help with being efficient in reviewing, while being effective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Allen, H., Boxer, E., & Cury, A. (2018). What does better peer review look like? Definitions, essential areas, and recommendations for better practice. Open Science Framework, 2018. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/4mfk2 .

  2. Benos, D. J., Kirk, K. L., & Hall, J. E. (2003). How to review a paper. Advances in Physiology Education, 27(3), 47–52.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bijmolt, T. H. A., & Pieters, R. (2001). Meta-analysis in marketing when studies contain multiple measurements. Marketing Letters, 12(2), 157–169.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2019). COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers Accessed on December 6, 2019.

  5. Cooper, H. (2016). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Council of Science Editors (CSE). (2018). CSE’s white paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications. https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/ Accessed on December 6, 2019.

  7. Crittenden, V. (2012). On the impactfuless of theory and review. AMS Review, 2(1), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Crittenden, V., & Peterson, R. A. (2011). The AMS review. AMS Review, 1(1), 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Davis, M. S. (1971). That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1(4), 309–344.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Elsevier and Sense About Science (2019). Quality, trust and peer review: researchers’ perspectives 10 years on. https://senseaboutscience.org/activities/peer-review-survey-2019/ Accessed on December 6, 2019.

  11. Elsevier Editors Share their Top Reviewing Tips. (2019). https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers-update/story/tutorials-and-resources/elsevier-editors-share-their-top-reviewing-tips-part-1 Accessed on December 3, 2019.

  12. Elsevier Peer Review: The Nuts and Bolts. (2015). https://www.elsevier.com/authors-update/story/peer-review/peer-review-nuts-and-bolts Accessed on December 3, 2019.

  13. Elsevier Quick Guide: How to Review Manuscripts. (2019). https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/websites/elsevier_publishingcampus/files/Guides/Quick_guide_how_to_review.pdf Accessed on December 3, 2019.

  14. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2012). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gosden, H. (2003). ‘Why not give us the full story?’ Functions of referees’ comments in peer review of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 87–101.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Holbrook, M. B. (1986). A note on sadomasochism in the review process: I hate when that happens. Journal of Marketing, 50(3 (July)), 104–108.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hütten, A. S. J., Salge, T. O., Niemand, T., & Siems, F. U. (2018). Advancing relationship marketing theory: Exploring customer relationships through a process-centric framework. AMS Review, 8, 39–57.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kelly, J., Sadeghieh, T., & Adeli, K. (2014). Peer review in scientific publications: Benefits, critiques, and a survival guide. The Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 25(3), 227–243.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lee, A. S. (1995). Reviewing a manuscript for publication. Journal of Operations Management, 13(1), 87–92.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lehmann, D. R., & Winer, R. S. (2017). The role and impact of reviewers on the marketing discipline. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45, 587–592.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lucey B. (2013). “Peer review: How to get it right – 10 tips.” The Guardian. Web. www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/sep/27/peer-review-10-tips-research-paper Accessed on December 9, 2019.

  22. Lunde, M. B. (2018). Sustainability in marketing: A systematic review unifying 20 years of theoretical and substantive contributions (1997 – 2016). AMS Review, 8, 85–110.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lynch, J. G. (1998). Presidential address: Reviewing. Advances in Consumer Research, 25, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  24. MacInnis, D. (2003). Responsibilities of a good reviewer: Lessons learned from kindergarten. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 344–345.

    Google Scholar 

  25. MacKenzie, S. B. (2003). The dangers of poor construct conceptualization. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 323–326.

    Google Scholar 

  26. McNair, R., Phuong, H.A.L., Cseri, L. and Szekely, G. (2019). Peer review of manuscripts: A valuable yet neglected tool for early-career researchers. Hindawi Education Research International Volume 2019, https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1359362.

  27. Meadows, A., & Wulf, K. (2019). Quality is multi-dimensional: How many ways can you define quality in peer review. The Scholarly Kitchen, (September 16). https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/09/16/quality-is-multi-dimensional-how-many-ways-can-you-define-quality-in-peer-review/.

  28. Moorman, C. (2019). Writing an outstanding review. https://www.ama.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Writing-an-Outstanding-Review.pdf. Accessed December 11, 2019.

  29. Mulligan, A., Hall, L., & Raphael, E. (2013). Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 132–161.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Nichols, N. L., & Sasser, J. M. (2014). The other side of the submit button: How to become a reviewer for Scientific Journals. The Physiologist, 57(2), 88–91.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ostrom, A. L. (2003). Achieving “reviewer readiness”. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 337–340.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Paltridge, B. (2015). Referees’ comments on submissions to peer-reviewed journals: When is a suggestion not a suggestion? Studies in Higher Education, 40(1), 106–122.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Pierson, C. (2015). Reviewing journal manuscripts: An easy to follow guide for any nurse reviewing journal manuscripts for publication. Wiley Blackwell. http://naepub.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/24329-Nursing-ReviewingMSS12ppselfcover_8.5x11_for_web.pdf. Accessed on December 10, 2019.

  34. PLOS. (2019). Reviewer center: How to write a peer review. https://reviewers.plos.org/resources/how-to-write-a-peer-review/. Accessed on December 10, 2019.

  35. Pratt, M. G. (2008). Fitting oval pegs into round holes: Tensions in evaluating and publishing qualitative research in top-tier north American journals. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 481–509.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Pratt, M. G. (2009). For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856–862.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Priem, R., & Rasheed, A. (2006). Reviewing as a vital professional service. In Y. Baruch, S. Sullivan, & H. Schepmyer (Eds.), Winning reviews: A guide for evaluating scholarly writing. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Publishing Research Consortium (PRC). (2016). Publishing research consortium peer review survey 2015. publishingresearchconsortium.com › 57-prc-peer-review-survey-2015 Accessed on December 6, 2019.

  39. Publons. (2018). The global state of peer review survey results. https://publons.com/community/gspr Accessed on December 6, 2019.

  40. Rand, W., Rust, R. T., & Kim, M. (2018). Complex systems: Marketing’s new frontier. AMS Review, 8, 111–127.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Rindfleisch, A. (2020). Transaction cost theory: Past, present and future. AMS Review, 10, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-019-00151-x.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Rodriguez-Bravo, B., Nicholas, D., Herman, E., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Watkinson, A., Xu, J., Abrizah, A., & Swigon, M. (2017). Peer review: The experience and views of early career researchers. Learned Publishing, 30(4), 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1111.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Rojewski, J. W., & Domenico, D. M. (2005). The art and politics of peer review. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 20(2), 41–54.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Seals, D. R., & Tanaka, H. (2000). Manuscript peer review: A helpful checklist for students and novice referees. Advances in Physiology Education, 23(1), 52–58.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Sett, R. K. (2018). Market orientation – Firm performance link in a dynamic environment: Looking inside the black box. AMS Review, 8, 163–179.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Singh, J. (2003). A reviewers’ gold. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 331–336.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Sipilä, J., Tarkiainen, A., & Sundqvist, S. (2018). Toward an improved conceptual understanding of consumer ambivalence. AMS Review, 8, 147–162.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Smith, D. C. (2003). The importance and challenges of being interesting. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 319–322.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Sternberg, R. J. (2003). There is no place for hostile reviews. International Journal of Clinical & Health Psychology, 3(1), 159–161.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Taylor, S. (2003). Big R (versus little r) reviewers: The anonymous coauthor. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 341–343.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Taylor and Francis. (2015). Peer review in 2015: A global view. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/peer-review/peer-review-global-view/ Accessed on December 6, 2019.

  52. Tennant, J. (2018). The state of the art in peer review. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 365. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fny204.

  53. Thyroff, A., Siemens, J. C., & Murray, J. B. (2018). Constructing a theoretical framework for the process of innovation legitimation. AMS Review, 8, 180–194.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Vargo, S. (2019). Personal communication. September 10.

  55. Warne, V. (2016). Rewarding reviewers- sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained. Learned Publishing, 29, 41–50.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Wiley Step by Step Guide to Reviewing a Manuscript. (2019). https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/how-to-perform-a-peer-review/step-by-step-guide-to-reviewing-a-manuscript.html#10. Accessed December 10, 2019.

  57. Wiley Top Tips for Reviewers. (2019). https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/how-to-perform-a-peer-review/top-tips-for-peer-reviewers.html. .

  58. Wilson, J. (2012). Peer review, the nuts and bolts: A guide for early career researchers. Sense About Science: UK. https://senseaboutscience.org/activities/peer-review-the-nuts-and-bolts/. Accessed September 20, 2019.

  59. Woodall, T., Rosborough, J., & Harvey, J. (2018). Proposal, project, practice, pause: Developing a framework for evaluating smart domestic product engagement. AMS Review, 8, 58–74.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Workman Jr., J. P. (1993). Marketing’s limited role in new product development in one computer systems firm. Journal of Marketing Research, XXX(November), 405–421.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Workman Jr., J. P., Homburg, C., & Gruner, K. (1998). Marketing organization: An integrative framework of dimensions and determinants. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 21–41.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Yadav, M. (2014). Enhancing theory development in marketing. AMS Review, 4, 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abbie Griffin.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Griffin, A., Barczak, G. Effective reviewing for conceptual journal submissions. AMS Rev 10, 36–48 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00162-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Peer review
  • Conceptual articles