|
EXTENDED GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWS
Please follow these steps when reviewing for MAER:
o Outline the Substance of Your Review
¤ Theoretical Contribution - Does the manuscript test, create, or extend theory? Does it change or advance knowledge of the concepts, relationships, models, or theories embedded in the relevant literatures? Does it cause scholars to think about some phenomenon in a way that would not be anticipated from extrapolations of existing work?
¤ Interestingness, Innovativeness, & Novelty - Does the manuscript examine new constructs, phenomena, or relationships, or does it test its predictions in an unconventional, elegant, and unexpected way?
¤ Empirical Contribution - Do the manuscript's findings add to the existing pool of knowledge in the relevant domains in an important and useful way?
¤ Technical Adequacy - Was the study well executed? If the study is hypothetico-deductive, do its manipulations or measures possess construct validity, and do its findings possess adequate internal and statistical conclusion validity? If the study is inductive, are its data gathered, coded, and interpreted according to prevailing standards?
o Write Your Review
¤ Be Constructive - Don't just point out problems, also point out solutions. Reviewers should be like "lifeguards"--trying to save the current manuscript, or at least the next project in the stream of research.
¤ Be Concise - Try not to cover the same ground in multiple comments; consolidate your coverage of a given theme in a single point.
¤ Be Polite and Conversational - Be "author friendly" in your tone, and use terms like "you" instead of "the authors."
¤ Identify Some Strengths - Open your review with what you liked, before focusing the bulk of your review on your criticisms and concerns.
¤ Don't Be "Two-Faced" - Don't send a different message in your Comments to the Author than you do in your Comments to the Editor, or than you do on the Reviewer Evaluation Form. Doing so puts the action editor in the awkward position of rejecting a paper that--seemingly--has positive reviews.
¤ Non-English Native Authors - You will sometimes be asked to review submissions from authors whose native language is not English. In those cases, distinguish between the quality of the writing and the quality of the ideas that the writing conveys. Those ideas may be good, even if they are not expressed well.
¤ Be On Time - MAER prides itself on cycle time. It is important to return your review on time so that the action editor can guarantee the authors a quick turnaround. Also, average time taken to return reviews is a key factor in making decisions about the editorial review board.
o Submit your review
¤ Complete the evaluation grid - Rate the manuscript using the grid received .
¤ Write your comments to the Editor - In a separate file, please explain your bottom-line recommendation to the editor(those comments are not shared with the authors). Please do not mention your bottom-line recommendation in the text of your actual review.
¤ Send an e-mail to the Editor - In the text of your e-mail, please mention the title of the maunscript whose review you are sending and your bottom-line recommandation. Attached to this e-mail, please send the evaluation grid, the comments to the author and the comments to the Editor.
|
