The Generous Spirit of the Peer Review Process: Perspectives and Insights From the HRDQ Editorial Team on Providing High‐Quality Reviews

Abstract

Are you inclined to "agree," are you "unavailable," or do you "decline" when you receive a personal review invitation from Human Resource Development Quarterly (HRDQ)?We sincerely hope that you will accept our invitations to perform reviews when we reach out to personally solicit your expertise.However, we do acknowledge that many reviewers immediately decline, note their lack of availability, or send us e-mails acknowledging the personal and professional commitments that preclude them from contributing to the journal in the capacity of a reviewer.We fully appreciate that many potential reviewers are being overly burdened with a high volume of review requests from many different journals, and that, at times, declining reviews may be necessary, particularly if declining is better than not delivering (Trevino, 2008).We realize that challenging work and unanticipated life event issues may present themselves, or that confl icts of interest might arise regarding author identity, or that performing a review by a specifi ed due date may simply not be possible.Yet, the high quality of the manuscripts that we publish in HRDQ is largely contingent on the high quality and timeliness of the peer review process.Therefore, we collectively decided to develop this editorial on performing high-quality reviews because, in our varied roles, many of us often have the task of reading the majority of the manuscripts that are sent out for review, reading all of the feedback provided by the reviewers who are invited to review a specifi c manuscript, as well as synthesizing the reviewer and editorial feedback in the process of preparing decision letters.We observe fi rsthand those reviewers who consistently develop high-quality reviews, but we also see areas where improvements can be made in further developing reviewer

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.