IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/amsrev/v10y2020i1d10.1007_s13162-020-00162-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effective reviewing for conceptual journal submissions

Author

Listed:
  • Abbie Griffin

    (University of Utah)

  • Gloria Barczak

    (Northeastern University)

Abstract

Peer reviewed academic journals, like AMS Review, live and die by their ability to obtain high quality reviews of submitted manuscripts. However, academics are increasingly pressed for time, needing to publish their research, teach their classes, and provide service to their Department, Faculty/College and University to support their careers in terms of retention, tenure, and promotion. Amidst these responsibilities, as a service to the Academy, academics also are expected to provide reviews of manuscripts in order to move the intellectual trajectory of the domain forward. High quality reviewing, though, takes cognitive energy and is time consuming, which then interferes with other academic responsibilities. For these reasons, editors of peer-reviewed academic journals are finding it more and more difficult to obtain a sufficient number of high-quality reviews to make good decisions about submissions in a timely manner. The purpose of this article is to help all reviewers, but especially those reviewing conceptual articles, provide a high-quality review. Specifically, this article first defines what constitutes a “high quality review,” and suggests how reviewing can aid an academic’s own research, writing and career. It then defines the behaviors needed for effective reviewing for all manuscripts, termed the 5 R’s: roles, responsibilities, responses, reactions, and respect. It then provides a reviewing template for conceptual articles, given the special difficulties of peer reviewing such articles, and closes with a few additional pieces of advice to help with being efficient in reviewing, while being effective.

Suggested Citation

  • Abbie Griffin & Gloria Barczak, 2020. "Effective reviewing for conceptual journal submissions," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 10(1), pages 36-48, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:amsrev:v:10:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s13162-020-00162-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s13162-020-00162-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13162-020-00162-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13162-020-00162-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Antje S. J. Hütten & Torsten Oliver Salge & Thomas Niemand & Florian U. Siems, 2018. "Advancing relationship marketing theory: exploring customer relationships through a process-centric framework," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 8(1), pages 39-57, June.
    2. Tony Woodall & Julie Rosborough & John Harvey, 2018. "Proposal, project, practice, pause: Developing a framework for evaluating smart domestic product engagement," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 8(1), pages 58-74, June.
    3. Adrian Mulligan & Louise Hall & Ellen Raphael, 2013. "Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 132-161, January.
    4. Jenni Sipilä & Anssi Tarkiainen & Sanna Sundqvist, 2018. "Toward an improved conceptual understanding of consumer ambivalence," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 8(3), pages 147-162, December.
    5. Manjit S. Yadav, 2014. "Enhancing theory development in marketing," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 4(1), pages 1-4, June.
    6. Victoria Crittenden & Robert A. Peterson, 2011. "The AMS Review," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 1(1), pages 1-3, March.
    7. Adrian Mulligan & Louise Hall & Ellen Raphael, 2013. "Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 132-161, January.
    8. William Rand & Roland T. Rust & Min Kim, 2018. "Complex systems: marketing’s new frontier," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 8(3), pages 111-127, December.
    9. Donald R. Lehmann & Russell S. Winer, 2017. "The role and impact of reviewers on the marketing discipline," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 587-592, September.
    10. Rahul Kumar Sett, 2018. "Market orientation − firm performance link in a dynamic environment: looking inside the black box," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 8(3), pages 163-179, December.
    11. Robert A. Peterson & Victoria L. Crittenden, 2012. "On the impactfulness of theory and review articles," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 2(1), pages 1-4, March.
    12. Aric Rindfleisch, 2020. "Transaction cost theory: past, present and future," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 10(1), pages 85-97, June.
    13. Matthew B. Lunde, 2018. "Sustainability in marketing: a systematic review unifying 20 years of theoretical and substantive contributions (1997–2016)," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 8(3), pages 85-110, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. J. A. Garcia & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2021. "The interplay between the reviewer’s incentives and the journal’s quality standard," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3041-3061, April.
    2. Bianchi, Federico & Grimaldo, Francisco & Squazzoni, Flaminio, 2019. "The F3-index. Valuing reviewers for scholarly journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 78-86.
    3. Yuetong Chen & Hao Wang & Baolong Zhang & Wei Zhang, 2022. "A method of measuring the article discriminative capacity and its distribution," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3317-3341, June.
    4. Michail Kovanis & Ludovic Trinquart & Philippe Ravaud & Raphaël Porcher, 2017. "Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: a large-scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 651-671, October.
    5. Qianjin Zong & Yafen Xie & Jiechun Liang, 2020. "Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 607-623, October.
    6. Maciej J Mrowinski & Piotr Fronczak & Agata Fronczak & Marcel Ausloos & Olgica Nedic, 2017. "Artificial intelligence in peer review: How can evolutionary computation support journal editors?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-11, September.
    7. Narjes Vara & Mahdieh Mirzabeigi & Hajar Sotudeh & Seyed Mostafa Fakhrahmad, 2022. "Application of k-means clustering algorithm to improve effectiveness of the results recommended by journal recommender system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3237-3252, June.
    8. Katarina Krapež, 2022. "Advancing Self-Evaluative and Self-Regulatory Mechanisms of Scholarly Journals: Editors’ Perspectives on What Needs to Be Improved in the Editorial Process," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, March.
    9. Bruno Dyck & Rajesh V. Manchanda, 2021. "Sustainable marketing based on virtue ethics: addressing socio-ecological challenges facing humankind," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 11(1), pages 115-132, June.
    10. Michail Kovanis & Raphaël Porcher & Philippe Ravaud & Ludovic Trinquart, 2016. "Complex systems approach to scientific publication and peer-review system: development of an agent-based model calibrated with empirical journal data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 695-715, February.
    11. Rodríguez Sánchez, Isabel & Makkonen, Teemu & Williams, Allan M., 2019. "Peer review assessment of originality in tourism journals: critical perspective of key gatekeepers," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-11.
    12. Alessandro Checco & Lorenzo Bracciale & Pierpaolo Loreti & Stephen Pinfield & Giuseppe Bianchi, 2021. "AI-assisted peer review," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    13. Kuklin, Alexander A. (Куклин, Александр) & Balyakina, Evgeniya A. (Балякина, Евгения), 2017. "Active policy as a key to success for an International Economic Periodical [Активная Политика — Залог Успеха Международного Экономического Журнала]," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 6, pages 160-177, December.
    14. Vivian M Nguyen & Neal R Haddaway & Lee F G Gutowsky & Alexander D M Wilson & Austin J Gallagher & Michael R Donaldson & Neil Hammerschlag & Steven J Cooke, 2015. "How Long Is Too Long in Contemporary Peer Review? Perspectives from Authors Publishing in Conservation Biology Journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-20, August.
    15. Dietmar Wolfram & Peiling Wang & Adam Hembree & Hyoungjoo Park, 2020. "Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1033-1051, November.
    16. Paul Sebo & Jean Pascal Fournier & Claire Ragot & Pierre-Henri Gorioux & François R. Herrmann & Hubert Maisonneuve, 2019. "Factors associated with publication speed in general medical journals: a retrospective study of bibliometric data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 1037-1058, May.
    17. Eirini Delikoura & Dimitrios Kouis, 2021. "Open Research Data and Open Peer Review: Perceptions of a Medical and Health Sciences Community in Greece," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-19, March.
    18. Pengfei Jia & Weixi Xie & Guangyao Zhang & Xianwen Wang, 2023. "Do reviewers get their deserved acknowledgments from the authors of manuscripts?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5687-5703, October.
    19. J. Israel Martínez-López & Samantha Barrón-González & Alejandro Martínez López, 2019. "Which Are the Tools Available for Scholars? A Review of Assisting Software for Authors during Peer Reviewing Process," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-28, September.
    20. Carlos Ferro-Soto & Carmen Padín & Carmen Otero-Neira & Göran Svensson, 2024. "Modeling Partners’ Behavior in Long-Lasting B2B Supply Chain Relationships," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Peer review; Conceptual articles;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:amsrev:v:10:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s13162-020-00162-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.