The art of scholarly reviewing: Principles and practices

Marijn Janssen, F.E. Bannister

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialScientificpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

The quality and reputation of an academic journal can depend on several factors, but high-quality peer reviews are always a core requirement. Unfortunately, reviews are not always up to the standard that they should be. Poor reviews can result in a number of problems including sub-standard articles being accepted and good manuscripts being rejected. Good reviews are comparable to good papers; they require attention and dedication to write well. Although journals are different, it is important that reviewers approach their task with goodwill, i.e. that they approach a manuscript with an open mind, read it with care and attention and make comments that are constructive and show self-reflection. Reviewers need to know the evaluation standards and the limits of their own expertise and, if in doubt, not to be afraid to say so.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-4
Number of pages4
JournalGovernment Information Quarterly
Volume36
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2019

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The art of scholarly reviewing: Principles and practices'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this