1. Thomas HeckeleiPublishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics 1 Observations on assignment 4 - Reviews General observations  Good effort! Some even at a level of good professional reviews in wording and substance, but big variation  Your rejection rate is 0%!!! ….far below average even for low tier journals…  “no substantial contribution” “theory missing and method wrong”, “objectives unclear and methodology faulty” or “does not fit to journal” cannot result in invited revision  however if your arguments are clear, then the editor is helped a lot independent of your recommendation  On the other hand, problems only with wording and “unclear introduction or abstract” should not imply “major” revision  You are generally fine with respect to the tone of the review …

2. Thomas HeckeleiPublishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics 2 Observations on assignment 4 - Reviews General observations – continued  Always provide comments in clearly distinguishable bullets (specific comments) or with numbering (general comments)  will help the authors with targeted response  Use of general versus specific comments sometimes confused: Something like “title is too long” or abstract not clear enough is not a “general comment”  If you have more than 10 general comments, then your general comments are not general enough....  There is no such thing as “acceptance with major revision”  Clearly, the substance of the reviews improves with own knowledge of literature. Identification of contribution not possible without it

3. Thomas HeckeleiPublishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics 3 Observations on “General comments”  Always identify the stated and/or perceived contribution (not only say “there is one” or “ there is none”)  “Paper adds to the literature” is not sufficient. You need to say what and how large the contribution is relative to what has been published  Assess value of this contribution or potential contribution after changes  relevant for inviting revision or not  General types of contribution:  New theory, generalisation/extension of existing theories  New methodology, generalisation/extension/combination of existing methodologies which is better suited to test theory or use information provided by data  New application with respect to data used (more recent, new region, more representative for testing hypotheses….) Observations on assignment 4 - Reviews

4. Thomas HeckeleiPublishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics 4 Observations on “General comments”  A short paragraph first summarizing the referee’s own understanding of what the paper does is useful (done by majority but not all)  Most wrote general comments first to give overview on most important points  good for authors and editor  Asking for a “major revision” has to be accompanied by general comments – to make reason and focus for required revision clear  The same general comments can lead to different recommendations depending on the journal Observations on assignment 4 - Reviews

5. Thomas HeckeleiPublishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics 5 Observations on “General comments” continued  Even though they are called “General”, you still need to explain WHY you like or do not like things (Example: Only writing “The structure confusing” or “theory not appropriate” or “introduction too long relative to conclusions” is not sufficient)  Do not go through all the points listed on the slides that might be relevant for the general comments. Only point out the relevant ones for your later recommendation (positive or negative) Observations on assignment 4 - Reviews

6. Thomas HeckeleiPublishing and Writing in Agricultural Economics 6 Observations on “specific comments”  Only identify problems. A long list of what is done right is not very informative. Can be summarized in one or two sentences in the general comments  Be specific in your “specific comments”! Are paragraphs and sentences (tables and figures) logical, clear, relevant, in the right order…don’t be afraid of being “wrong”; identify exactly the location (section, paragraph, equation number or lines) of the parts your comment relates to  Statements like “some conclusions are not related to the research” don’t help. Identify which and why.  However, do not act as co-author! Avoid too specific requests in how to rewrite a section. Rather identify where things are unclear or misplaced in your view Observations on assignment 4 - Reviews