Editorial‐The Art of Constructive Reviewing

Abstract

In my previous editorial (Davison, 2014), I discussed problems associated with bias in the review process, as well as some mitigation options.In this editorial, I return to the review process but this time examine the art and practice of constructive reviewing.By constructive reviewing (sometimes referred to as developmental reviewing), I am referring to the process of reviewers providing feedback that helps authors to develop their paper.Constructive reviewing is very much a key aspect of our editorial philosophy at the ISJ.We provide feedback to all reviewers so that each reviewer can see how others tackled the review and how a decision was reached.Reviewing provides valuable insights into how others write and thus contributes to one's own writing.Reviewing was also, tangentially, a topic raised in the ISWORLD mailing list earlier this year, along the lines of: the review process can be any two (but not all three) of: cheap, quick and good.Given that the ISJ, like many journals, does not pay its reviewers (though we do offer free access to Wiley's digital library), the issue of cost is essentially taken care of: the reviews are delivered for free.However, speed and quality are worthy of more careful attention, not least because they are prime components of constructive reviews.At the ISJ, we work with reviewers to ensure that delays are minimized.If a reviewer commits to complete a review within a fixed time frame, then we sincerely hope (and expect) that it will be delivered on time.If a reviewer needs an extension, then this can be arranged but not ad infinitum.If necessary new reviewers are sought and the overdue reviewers are recused.As a point of fact, the average time for an original manuscript submitted to the ISJ between its submission and first decision was 89 days in 2013 and 73 days in 2014.The issue of review quality is one that we take particularly seriously.SEs and AEs are exhorted to impress on reviewers the need for them to be as constructive as possible.We have formalized this requirement by ensuring that our email templates, which are used to inform SEs/AEs about new assignments, as well as to invite scholars to act as reviewers, convey this message in clear and precise terms.This does not preclude rejection of a paper, but such a rejection must be accompanied by constructive remarks that justify why a reject recommendation was reached.Ideally, however, we hope to provide authors with the opportunity to develop and improve their work.Critical elements of a constructive review therefore include:• Providing actionable advice, not mere polemic, which helps the author produce a paper that is articulately argued, yet which also is recognizably the author's work.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.