The Ideal Review Process Is a Three-Way Street

In response to the increasing difficulty of obtaining high quality peer reviews, our invited paper describes the concept of review avoidance and why this phenomenon occurs. In reaffirming the professional responsibilities and potential benefits of reviewing, we also emphasize the interdependent nature of the ideal peer review process. We suggest that the review process is a three-way street where the respective roles and responsibilities of authors, editors and editorial teams, and reviewers are inextricably linked. We present thematic illustrations of undesirable reviewer comments, and a brief synthesis of broad themes in the literature on high-quality reviewing. The synthesis is complemented by a master reviewer’s fine-grained perspective on crafting high quality reviews. A final Appendix presents additional sources that may be informative for prospective reviewers, submitting authors, and those mentors and colleagues who may wish to provide guidance and training to them.

[1]  J. Lester Introduction to Special Issue: Qualitative Research Methodologies and Methods for Theory Building in Human Resource Development , 2022, Human Resource Development Review.

[2]  J. Zarestky Navigating Multiple Approaches to Qualitative Research in HRD , 2022, Human Resource Development Review.

[3]  Maria S. Plakhotnik,et al.  Conducting and Writing a Structured Literature Review in Human Resource Development , 2022, Human Resource Development Review.

[4]  Rajashi Ghosh,et al.  Reflections on the Reviewer Development Workshop , 2022, Human Resource Development Review.

[5]  Yonjoo Cho Comparing Integrative and Systematic Literature Reviews , 2022 .

[6]  Jon M. Werner Academic Integrity and Human Resource Development: Being and Doing , 2022, Human Resource Development Review.

[7]  M. Wolfgram,et al.  Conducting Community Based Participatory Action Research , 2021, Human Resource Development Review.

[8]  T. Reio The Ten Research Questions: An Analytic Tool for Critiquing Empirical Studies and Teaching Research Rigor , 2021 .

[9]  I. Georgiou The Literature Review as an Exercise in Historical Thinking , 2021 .

[10]  P. Kerig Why Participate in Peer Review? , 2021, Journal of traumatic stress.

[11]  Jessica Nina Lester,et al.  Learning to Do Qualitative Data Analysis: A Starting Point , 2020, Human Resource Development Review.

[12]  Jeremy D. Meuser,et al.  JMP editorial on increasing your chances of publication , 2020 .

[13]  Jia Wang Enhancing Research Significance by Addressing “Why” , 2019, Human Resource Development Review.

[14]  Rajashi Ghosh Inviting contributions on international HRD research in HRDI , 2019, Human Resource Development International.

[15]  Jia Wang Becoming a Responsible Writer , 2019, Human Resource Development Review.

[16]  Steven D. Charlier,et al.  AMLE Reviewer Resource Library: A Collection of Recommended Pieces on Developmental Reviewing , 2019, Academy of Management Learning & Education.

[17]  Jessica Li Frame your research in the field of HRD and with cultural sensitivity: important considerations for publications in HRDI , 2019, Human Resource Development International.

[18]  Jia Wang Demystifying Literature Reviews: What I Have Learned From an Expert? , 2019, Human Resource Development Review.

[19]  Steven D. Charlier,et al.  From theAMLEEditorial Team:BeinganAMLEReviewer , 2019, Academy of Management Learning & Education.

[20]  John O. Summers Guidelines for conducting research and publishing in marketing: From conceptualization through the review process , 2001, How to Get Published in the Best Marketing Journals.

[21]  Jia Wang Making a Difference Through Quality Manuscript Review , 2018, Human Resource Development Review.

[22]  Darlene F. Russ-Eft Second Time Around: AHRD Standards on Ethics and Integrity , 2018 .

[23]  B. R. Ragins Editor’s Comments: Raising the Bar for Developmental Reviewing , 2017 .

[24]  Kim F. Nimon HRDQ Submissions of Quantitative Research Reports: Three Common Comments in Decision Letters and a Checklist , 2017 .

[25]  Ronald S. Landis,et al.  From the Editors: Establishing Methodological Rigor in Quantitative Management Learning and Education Research: The Role of Design, Statistical Methods, and Reporting Standards , 2017 .

[26]  Benson Honig,et al.  Special Section On Ethics in Management Research: Norms, Identity, and Community in the 21st Century , 2017 .

[27]  Rebecca W. Hamilton,et al.  A Field Guide for the Review Process: Writing and Responding to Peer Reviews , 2016 .

[28]  Benjamin T. Hazen,et al.  Addressing a broken peer review process , 2016 .

[29]  T. Köhler From the Editors: On Writing Up Qualitative Research in Management Learning and Education , 2016 .

[30]  Jon M. Werner Publication Ethics and HRDQ: Holding Ourselves Accountable , 2016 .

[31]  Kim F. Nimon,et al.  Improving the Rigor of Quantitative HRD Research: Four Recommendations in Support of the General Hierarchy of Evidence , 2015 .

[32]  Gary A. Ballinger,et al.  Editors' comments: your first AMR review , 2015 .

[33]  B. R. Ragins Editor's Comments: Developing our Authors , 2015 .

[34]  F. Al-Shamali,et al.  Author Biographies. , 2015, Journal of social work in disability & rehabilitation.

[35]  Jamie L. Callahan Creation of a Moral Panic? Self-Plagiarism in the Academy , 2014 .

[36]  M. Lunn Strengthening Your Submissions to HRDQ: Advice from the Managing Editor , 2014 .

[37]  Kim F. Nimon,et al.  The Generous Spirit of the Peer Review Process: Perspectives and Insights From theHRDQEditorial Team on Providing High-Quality Reviews , 2013 .

[38]  P. Caligiuri,et al.  From the Editors: How to write a high-quality review , 2013 .

[39]  Kenneth G. Brown,et al.  From the Editors: Thoughts on Effective Reviewing , 2012 .

[40]  Tonette S. Rocco,et al.  Criteria for evaluating qualitative studies , 2010 .

[41]  C. Carter,et al.  CRAFTING HIGH‐QUALITY REVIEWS: GUIDELINES, EXAMPLES AND FEEDBACK , 2010 .

[42]  David P. Lepak,et al.  Editor's Comments: What is Good Reviewing? , 2009 .

[43]  Linda Klebe Trevino,et al.  Editor's Comments: Why Review? Because Reviewing is a Professional Responsibility , 2008 .

[44]  Sadoughi Majid,et al.  CRITERIA OF EVALUATING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH , 2008 .

[45]  J. Miner Commentary on Arthur Bedeian’s “The Manuscript Review Process: The Proper Roles of Authors, Referees, and Editors” , 2003 .

[46]  Arthur G. Bedeian,et al.  The Manuscript Review Process , 2003 .

[47]  T. Rocco Shaping the Future: Writing up the Method on Qualitative Studies. , 2003 .

[48]  David A. Harrison,et al.  Obligations and obfuscations in the review process , 2002 .

[49]  Donald D. Bergh,et al.  From the Editors Deriving Greater Benefit from the Reviewing Process , 2002 .

[50]  D. Coghlan Rhythms of Academic Life: Personal Accounts of Careers in Academia , 1997 .

[51]  E. Romanelli Becoming a Reviewer: Lessons Somewhat Painfully Learned , 1995 .