1. How to Satisfy Reviewer B and Other Thoughts on the Publication Process: Reviewers’ Perspectives Don Roy Past Editor, Marketing Management Journal

2. What are criteria that you apply when evaluating the quality of a manuscript? Contribution to literature; How well study was conducted. My priorities are typically in the methodology. I look at samples and how they are derived and surveys and how they are administered. Good writing, organization, the literature review and reliable data are important to me. I look for a number of things: - Quality of writing overall - Ability to weave a compelling/persuasive story - Theory-based hypotheses (well grounded in the literature) - Rigorous and transparent methodology - Practical applications Based on theory Strong method The importance of the research Whether the theory development is clear and logically reasonable; Whether the experiment design is clearly described and whether the results really support or reject the theory; Whether the author has carefully discussed the limits and indications of their study.

3. What are some common weaknesses or mistakes you observe in papers that you review? Poor writing. Poor job addressing reviewers concerns. I see two problems most often. First samples are small, non representative and selected almost exclusively based on convenience. Second, there needs to be solid justification for the paper based on a good understanding of the topic. - It is amazing how often I see numerous editing errors that could easily be rectified by a review from a professional editor. The oversight on the editing aspect signals to the reader that there is little attention paid to the details, making the reader wonder what other aspects have been overlooked. - It can be easy for the author to forget that not all readers are familiar with his/her particular area. Make sure the writing is clear and transparent to an outside reader. - At times the logical flow of the argument is hard to follow because the writing jumps around a lot. While papers are often written in sections over many months, the final reading should be a focused, logical argument. Failure to clearly indicate the managerial implications of the research The authors sometimes did not clearly describe their experiment design, and they ignored some important details (maybe the author think these details are not important).

4. What are your expectations of authors in their responses to reviewers' comments? Clearly illustrate the reviewers comments and show how addressed them. Simply that they consider the comments and make a sincere attempt to address them. - I expect authors to respond to all concerns from all the reviewers (if you don't agree with a comment, use literature to support the current position). I've seen responses given in a table format (reviewer comment, response, and page reference). It was very effective. - It is always a breath of fresh air when authors take the revision seriously and go above and beyond the reviewer comments to make their paper stronger. I expect authors to address every major concern in their response. Often times, authors pick and choose those comments in which to respond. Every major concern should be addressed. Ignoring a major issue in author comments does not make the issue disappear. The authors need to take positive attitude towards the comments. If the comments make sense and can be incorporated using reasonable effort and time, they should take actions to modify the paper; if the comments are practically difficult to do or the comments are incorrect, they can choose not to do that, but they need to clearly communicate that.

5. What advice would you give to less experienced authors for preparing a paper to go through the review process? Make it clear early on how fit journal and contribution. Read the journal. Look at accepted articles. Mimic success. - Ask someone in your field to do a read-through before sending the paper to a journal. Note: Initially, it might take 5-7 revisions, on average, to get a paper ready for journal submission. - It might be helpful to send the paper to the conference that is linked to the journal you prefer in order to get initial feedback (although this process is time consuming). However, make sure to publish only the abstract in the conference proceeding, if accepted, so that you can submit the complete paper to the journal without worries of self-plagiarism. Make sure you look at the positioning of the journal. Make sure you prepare the document according to the journal's guidelines. This includes page length. The paper need to be clearly written (in another word, the story should be clear and complete). The authors should try to avoid or reduce unnecessary low-level mistakes. After then, the reviewers can really focus on the content of the paper and give feedback how to improve the paper.

6. Additional Thoughts Make sure the paper is clear and well written. Don't send in a paper before its time. A conference paper is not necessarily ready for a journal. Take your time. Submit the best effort the first time. - Reviewers really do want to publish good work and are delighted when they read a well-positioned paper. Most are not reviewing in order to criticize or belittle. Their comments are meant to help make your paper stronger. As hard as this might be, do not take the comments as a personal attack, but use them to strengthen your work.