Instructions for Reviewers

Guidelines for Reviewers

(Updated January 2009)

This page contains guidelines for Associate Editors (AE) and reviewers on how to construct their reports. Target due dates for each step of the process are indicated. It is assumed throughout that the AEs and reviewers conduct the entire editorial process via the Manuscript Central (MC) software.

Associate Editors

Details of the editorial process

The editorial process for an Associate Editor (AE) is as follows:

1. The Editor assigns an AE to a manuscript. If the AE cannot handle the paper, the AE should inform the Editor so that the paper can be assigned to another AE. An AE may choose to not handle a paper for a number of reasons: the AE's current workload is too high to provide a timely review or the AE feels the paper is too far from the AE's expertise to provide a fair and accurate assessment of the paper, etc.
2. The AE picks, invites, and assigns 2-3 reviewers. In general, three reviewers will be recruited but with some papers it may be appropriate to recruit only 2. The AE has 4, 1, and 4 days to complete these tasks, respectively. The due dates for these tasks are based on the date when the AE is assigned a paper, i.e., from the date the Editor assigns a paper to an AE the AE has 9 days to complete these tasks. The AE completes the "pick" task in MC when the AE has listed the required number of potential reviewers in the MC software (the default is 3 but the AE can change that number to 2). The invite task (which is distinct from picking, but usually is completed immediately after picking a reviewer) sends an e-mail to a potential reviewer inviting the reviewer to review the paper. The assign task is completed when the potential reviewer agrees to review a paper (by clicking on the "I accept" link in the invitation e-mail) or if the AE manually enters into the MC site that a potential reviewer has agreed to review a paper. (The second option is provided because some reviewers may communicate their decision to the AE via some communication channel outside of MC.) A reviewer that accepts to review a paper is given 35 days to complete the review from the date the reviewer is assigned to the paper, i.e., from the date the reviewer accepts to review a paper, not from the date the reviewer is invited to review a paper.
3. The AE receives at least 2 reviews on the paper. It is the AE's decision whether to drop a late reviewer. If a reviewer is dropped from the process, then the AE changes in MC the field "required number of reviews" from 3 to 2. Once the number of reviews received by MC equals the "required number of reviews", the MC software considers the reviewers' portion of the process completed. The AE is then given 10 days to complete his or her review. For example, suppose three reviewers agree to read a manuscript. Two of them submit to MC their reports within 35 days. A third reviewer misses the 35 day deadline, but requests a one week extension. The reviewer does not meet this extension either so the AE informs the reviewer that he or she will be unassigned. The AE also changes the "required number of reviews" from 3 to 2. Because two reviews have been submitted to the system, MC now assumes the review process has been completed.
4. Once the review task has been completed (the number of reviews submitted to MC equals the number in the "required number of reviews" field), MC informs the AE that he or she has 10 days to submit his or her report to the Editor.

In total, an AE should complete his or her tasks within 54 days: 9 days to pick, invite, and assign reviewers; 35 days to receive the reviewers' reports; and 10 days to complete his or her own report. Assuming the Editor completes his tasks of assigning an AE and making a final recommendation in a total of 9 days, the entire time to complete a review should be 63 days (nine weeks).

Decision to send a paper to reviewers

The Editor will do a preliminary screen of all papers to judge the fit to the journal, as prescribed in the Editorial Mission statement. Nevertheless, the AE should also read the paper to judge whether it is appropriate to send the paper to reviewers. The AE can return a manuscript either because the AE deems, with high confidence, that the paper does not have the potential to be publishable in M&SOM, or the AE concludes the paper may be publishable if the authors address obvious omissions or errors in the analysis. With this latter decision, the AE should indicate to the authors that the paper can be resubmitted to the journal after the identified issues are addressed.

If the AE decides to not send the paper to reviewers, then the AE should change the "required number of reviewers" field to 0. The MC software will then assume the review process has been completed and allow the AE to submit a report and a decision.

Responsibility for timely reviews

AEs are responsible for ensuring their reviewers return reports in a timely manner. AEs are required to obtain at least two reports from reviewers before making a decision. Given that three reviewers are generally recruited, the AE can decide (possibly in consultation with the Editor) to drop a reviewer that is unable to provide a timely report. Before dropping a reviewer, the AE should communicate with the reviewer (via e-mail in the MC site) to determine the reason for the reviewer's tardiness. The AE can give the reviewer an extension. The AE drops a reviewer by "unassigning" the reviewer in the MC software.

What to include in an AE report

A good AE report provides a synthesis of the referees' evaluations, along with the AE's own assessment of the paper. The report should provide a recommendation. When the recommendation is reject, then the report should provide an explanation and justification for this decision; to the extent it is possible, the report should also provide constructive feedback on what might make this into a publishable paper. When the recommendation is for a revision, the report should attempt to provide for the authors a clear set of actions to guide the revision, as well as some explanation as to why these actions will result in a better paper.

Reviewers

Reviewers are given 35 days to complete their report. M&SOM's objective is to provide authors with quality reviews of their manuscripts. A quality review provides a thorough critical evaluation of the manuscript that is incisive, constructive, and fair.

Evaluation

The hallmark of a quality review is a thorough, rigorous, and balanced evaluation of the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses. All major assumptions, assertions, analyses, examples, data, etc. should be considered in detail for correctness and clarity. In addition, an evaluation should provide a subjective assessment of the work, guided by the publication criteria given in the Editorial Mission statement.

Promptness

Another necessary condition for a quality review is promptness. Agreeing to provide an M&SOM review assignment is an explicit agreement to deliver a review within 35 days. Tardiness may result in being dropped from the manuscript (at the discretion of the AE and/or Editor).

Constructiveness and Diplomacy

A quality review not only provides a critical assessment of the work and its contributions, but also is constructive in suggesting ways that the paper can be improved or strengthened. The tone of the report is also very important: a report should deliver negative evaluations with professionalism and diplomacy. Reviewers requiring a "more emotional outlet" are welcome to express themselves in private correspondence to the Editors.

Recommendation

A quality review renders a judgment on the whether the paper is publishable or may be publishable in M&SOM. In particular, the reviewer is requested to recommend one of the following:

1. Reject - The paper is not publishable as is and not likely to be publishable even with a revision.
2. Major Revision Required - The paper may or may not be publishable; a major revision is needed before a final decision can be made.
3. Minor Revision Required - The paper is probably publishable, but needs some minor revisions before a final decision can be made.
4. Accept - The paper is publishable as is, possibly subject to some very minor revisions that are not subject to further review by the referee.