Writing a good review or Dont do onto others as they have done onto you Anne M. Magro University of Oklahoma Jane Kennedy University of Washington

Game plan Role of the reviewerRole of the reviewer Goals of the review processGoals of the review process Process of writing the reviewProcess 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 reviewer Want to help the editor make a decision and improve the paper!Want to help the editor make a decision and improve the paper! AdvisorAdvisor EducatorEducator ContributorContributor

Goals of the review process Identify strengthsIdentify strengths Identify weaknessesIdentify weaknesses Contribute to improved qualityContribute to improved quality

Process of writing the review General rules:General rules: –Reviews take time. –Reviews often require research. –Be timely. –Be thorough.

Content of the review report Strengths and weaknesses in:Strengths and weaknesses in: –Contribution –Theory –Research design –Data analysis –Interpretation of results/conclusions drawn

Content of the review For problems identified:For problems identified: –What is the issue? –Why is it a problem? –How can it be addressed? Focus on issues that if addressed will increase the likelihood of publication or those that preclude publication.Focus on issues that if addressed will increase the likelihood of publication or those that preclude publication. Think through alternative explanations thoroughly.Think through alternative explanations thoroughly.

Communication style Quality of communication matters.Quality of communication matters. –Be constructive. –Be clear. –Be nonconfrontational. Recognize issues of taste.Recognize issues of taste. Address author or paper?Address author or paper?

Reviewing 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? Circulate your paper before you submit to a journalCirculate your paper before you submit to a journal Dont submit a paper until you know it is ready (you may get the wrong feedback if you submit to get feedback!)Dont submit a paper until you know it is ready (you may get the wrong feedback if you submit to get feedback!) Choose the outlet wisely (your references should give an idea of the appropriate outlet)Choose the outlet wisely (your references should give an idea of the appropriate outlet) The introduction is critical– dont underestimate itThe introduction is critical– dont underestimate it Dont promise more than the paper deliversDont promise more than the paper delivers Make sure you check spelling and references– first impressions are important.Make sure you check spelling and references– first impressions are important.

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 notes about what you can do based on the commentsTake it out again and see if you can handle making notes about what you can do based on the comments Put it away again??Put it away again?? Show the editors letter to a senior colleague with experience in interpreting lettersShow the editors letter to a senior colleague with experience in interpreting letters Revise the paper for this or another journalRevise the paper for this or another journal

Revising the paper Dont assume the reviewer is stupid (you likely didnt communicate well)Dont assume the reviewer is stupid (you likely didnt communicate well) They (like you) have limited time – dont waste it or make them work too hard.They (like you) have limited time – dont waste it or make them work too hard. Be sure you address their comments in the paper to the extent possible rather than arguing only in memos to the reviewerBe sure you address their comments in the paper to the extent possible rather than arguing only in memos to the reviewer Respond to the reviewer clearly and concisely about the issue.Respond to the reviewer clearly and concisely about the issue. Believe good papers get published most of the time!Believe good papers get published most of the time!