guest article of Seigyoung Auh
I have always taken the view that reviewing a manuscript is just as important for the development of our profession as is publishing. One cannot exist without the other. I am honored to be able to share my thoughts on what it means to review (at least personally) and how I have worked to improve my ability to provide a constructive and helpful review to authors.
Throughout my career, I have learned that reviewing has far reaching impact that sometimes we tend to forget or ignore. Committing oneself to evaluate other’s work provides the foundation and opportunity to see from an objective perspective how reviewers may interpret my own work. Without going into the details of what I believe is a good review as this can be different from paper to paper, I try to apply three principles whenever possible.
1. I try to approach the review process from an open mindset. What I mean by this is that I attempt to shun any biases (e.g., topic of study) that may prevent an impartial evaluation. I must confess that this is by no means an automatic but a deliberative process that I have to work to employ each time. For example, a topic that has received significant attention can still make a contribution contingent on how the manuscript/hypotheses are crafted by how the nuanced message that the authors are trying to sell is communicated. A good paper has a clear and distinct storyline that most people find interesting. How that story is crafted and delivered is just as important as the content of the story itself.
2. I have noticed that sometimes reviewers do not carefully read the details of the manuscript and make assumptions or claims based on what they believe is correct (assertions that are simply not true about the paper: e.g., when told that a construct has not been defined). I strongly believe that this serves injustice to the authors and I make every attempt to not repeat such practices when I review papers. What this really boils down to is that we have the responsibility to read carefully and diligently the hard work of what has been submitted and critique the work based on what is given to us.
3. I try to conclude my reviews in a separate section, where possible, that delineates an actionable plan that can improve the manuscript. Early in my career, I focused on highlighting the problems associated with certain aspects of the paper. However, what I find especially useful are detailed or strategic level guidelines on steps that can be taken to move the paper forward (of course this can sometimes be the role of AEs or EICs but I still find it useful coming from a reviewer). This obviously takes more time and effort but it advances the review from problem identification to resolution recommendation, which I believe authors welcome and benefit from.
In closing, reviewing takes practice and time but the reward is multi-faceted from personal development to contribution to the progression of our field. I especially encourage scholars in their early careers to get involved and not shy away until one thinks (s)he is more established as there is so much to learn from this vital aspect of our profession.
Seigyoung Auh, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Marketing
“Best Reviewer of JSR 2014”
Thunderbird School of Global Management
Arizona State University
Associate Editor: Journal of International Marketing
photo source: Thomas Leuthard
