Peer review Assignment

ReviewerFeedbackGuidance.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Peer review Assignment

Agenda

1. Editorial policy and research fields 2. Providing feedback

1. Guidance on reviewer reports 2. Preparing and presenting a reviewer report

3. Comparing feedback 4. Responding to feedback 5. Revisions and further rounds of reviews 6. Presenting, providing feedback to, and discussing research (I) 7. Presenting, providing feedback to, and discussing research (II) 8. Presenting, providing feedback to, and discussing research (III)

Page 27UIBK | Thomas Lindner

Agenda

1. Editorial policy and research fields 2. Providing feedback

1. Guidance on reviewer reports 2. Preparing and presenting a reviewer report

Page 29UIBK | Thomas Lindner

Guidance on how to prepare a review report1 (I)

» General guidance

» The job of the referee is to provide expert and unambiguous advice to the editor about whether or not a paper is publishable. The referee advises, the editor decides. In the case of a recommendation to invite resubmission, the referee should advise the editor about any changes that the reviewer believes are needed to make the paper publishable. In contrast, the referee should not advise the editor to require any change that does not affect the paper’s publishability. Referees are free to make suggestions for improving a paper, but it is important to make clear in their reports that these comments are suggestions to the authors for improvement or extension, not advice to the editor on requirements for publication.

Page 30UIBK | Thomas Lindner

1Note that this is a particular finance (in fact, Journal of Finance) perspective

Guidance on how to prepare a review report1 (II) » Cover Letter » The ideal cover letter provides three types of information:

1. A summary of the paper’s core contribution. The editor may not be an expert in this field, and it is often hard to figure out the paper’s main point or line of reasoning.

2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research in its current state; and 3. A frank assessment: is the core contribution of the paper, as it stands, a publishable result, and is it likely to be publishable with one round of

revision?

» Advice to the editor should be decisive. You are being asked to make a recommendation: accept, revise or reject. Reasons for uncertainty can be included in the explanation for the recommendation. If the paper is somewhat outside your area, you might suggest that a second opinion be sought and you should provide names of candidate referees, and if possible, what specific issues the alternative referee can address that you felt were outside your area of expertise.

» A revise recommendation is a serious commitment given that A-level publications are rare. You should not make a revise recommendation to simply defer judgment. It is not helpful for Editors to hear that ‘this paper seems ok, but I am not sure, let’s see what the authors can do.’ Most of the work you put into the refereeing process should be at the initial stage. That said, it is crucial that you stick with the paper and make sure the paper attains the journal’s high standard when it is resubmitted.

Page 31UIBK | Thomas Lindner

1Note that this is a particular finance (in fact, Journal of Finance) perspective

Guidance on how to prepare a review report1 (II)

» Referee report

» The first section of the report (often one paragraph) should contain a concise summary of the paper’s claimed results, contributions, and general line of reasoning. The editor is typically not an expert in the paper’s subfield, so it is important for this summary to be clear. Only after this, turn to substantive issues about the importance and validity of the claimed results.

» The main job of the referee is not: 1. To help write the paper as a quasi-coauthor 2. Make an unpublishable paper publishable by directing the research 3. To ensure that the paper cites the referee’s work.

» Take a scientific stance in your report. Do not insult the authors, or use overly emotional or accusatory language. Avoid ascribing bad intent to authors (“The authors were trying for a cheap publication,” “The authors were trying to brush past literature/conflicting findings under the rug…”) and focus on the substance of the paper. If there are indications of intellectual dishonesty, state the facts rather than speculating on intent. If an accusation is made, leave it for the cover letter to the Editor.

Page 32UIBK | Thomas Lindner

1Note that this is a particular finance (in fact, Journal of Finance) perspective

Guidance on how to prepare a review report1 (III)

» Content of the report

1. The importance of the paper. This is the most subjective part of the report. Space is limited in A-level journals; in many economics-related fields, they routinely reject more than 90% of submissions. There are plenty of “correct” papers that do not make a significant enough marginal contribution to existing knowledge. The editor needs to assess the importance of the contribution aided by your report. The report should contain an argument that supports your assessment of the importance of the work and detail the considerations that bear upon your judgment.

2. Problems with the paper that render it unpublishable. In this case provide a scientifically convincing argument for why these problems render the paper unpublishable (i.e. you believe the problems are serious enough that they are unlikely to be fixable in the next round). The argument needs to be clear and understandable to the editor (and authors). You should not merely list your objections to the paper. You need to explain why those objections are serious enough to render the paper unpublishable.

Page 33UIBK | Thomas Lindner

1Note that this is a particular finance (in fact, Journal of Finance) perspective

Guidance on how to prepare a review report1 (IV)

» Content of the report 3. Problems with the paper that currently make it unpublishable, but which you believe could be corrected. In this

case be very clear why the paper is unpublishable (see above) and what a correction to the problem would look like. If you suspect that there are problems with the empirical work, this is where you put those concerns and specify what additional work the authors would need to do to satisfy you. Whatever you suggest is going to cost the author significant time. If the author satisfactorily addresses the issues, you should recommend publication.

4. Problems with the paper that do not render the paper unpublishable. Here you do not need to provide reasons for your opinion, but you cannot hold up publication if the authors do not address these problems. In many cases people disagree about what should and should not go into the paper. Ultimately, the author’s name goes on the paper, not yours. It is the author’s decision on how best to write the paper, not yours. Authors also have a responsibility not to waste good or important suggestions, subject to the fact that there are differences of opinion and that suggestions are costly to implement. It is not appropriate for referees to try to enforce author responsibility by taking a paper hostage if that paper is already publishable.

Page 34UIBK | Thomas Lindner

1Note that this is a particular finance (in fact, Journal of Finance) perspective

Agenda

1. Editorial policy and research fields 2. Providing feedback

1. Guidance on reviewer reports 2. Preparing and presenting a reviewer report

Page 35UIBK | Thomas Lindner

Agenda

1. Editorial policy and research fields 2. Providing feedback

1. Guidance on reviewer reports 2. Preparing and presenting a reviewer report

Page 39UIBK | Thomas Lindner

What do you think about the paper?

» Interorganizational Diversity, Institutional Risk, and the Formation of Multipartner Syndicates

» What is good about it? What is bad?

» How clear is the theoretical contribution?

» How sound are empirics?

Page 40UIBK | Thomas Lindner

What do you think about the paper?

» Interorganizational Diversity, Institutional Risk, and the Formation of Multipartner Syndicates

» What is good about it? What is bad?

» How clear is the theoretical contribution?

» How sound are empirics?

» Prepare a review presentation with your group (90 minutes)

» Leave 45 minutes for presentation (5 minutes max) and discussion

Page 41UIBK | Thomas Lindner