|
EARNING AN INVITATION TO THE BOARD
Each incoming Editor picks a new Editorial Review Board (ERB). Those ERB members then serve a three year term, where they are asked to review 8-10 manuscripts per year. When a new Editor takes over, he or she will pick an entirely new board. Ad hoc reviewers who aspire to board membership, or current ERB members who would like to be on subsequent boards, are encouraged to review the criteria used to make ERB decisions:
o Scholarly Productivity - ERB members have demonstrated an ability to publish in top Canadian and international journals, including MAER itself. Although their scholarly record varies according to their rank (Assistant, Associate, Full, and international equivalents), current ERB members average 9 top-tier publications.
o Reviewing Quality - ERB members have demonstrated the ability to write good reviews. Action editors grade the quality of reviews on a five-point scale encompassing validity, comprehensiveness, and constructiveness (see below).
¤ 5 - Exceptionally valid, comprehensive, and constructive
¤ 4 - Above average mix of validity, comprehensiveness, and constructive suggestions
¤ 3 - Hit most major points, but imbalanced (e.g., valid but incomplete suggestions) or mildly deficient in validity, comprehensiveness, or constructive suggestions)
¤ 2 - Significantly lacking in validity, comprehensiveness, and constructive suggestions
¤ 1 - Unacceptable
o Reviewing Conscientiousness - ERB members have performed their reviewing duties conscientiously. In practice, this is assessed in two ways: average time taken to return reviews and the percentage of review requests that are accepted rather than declined. On average, current ERB members return their reviews within 4 weeks and accept 21 % of the review requests that come their way.
|
