Publishing journal articles in economics is slow and challenging, and effective peer reviews play an important role in shaping the efficiency and equity of the process. Despite its importance, many researchers have received little guidance on how to become a constructive peer reviewer. This article provides advice on how to approach peer reviews thoughtfully and professionally, with the goal of improving the experiences of both authors and reviewers.
First considerations before accepting peer review assignments
Before accepting a peer review assignment, consider whether it is a good match to review submitted manuscripts. Do you know the types of journals and the articles they normally publish? Are you familiar with the literature and methods of the paper? Can I complete the review by the assigned deadline or do I need to request additional time? It is also essential to disclose any potential conflicts of interest, such as personal or professional relationships with authors that may affect your objectivity. If you have to reject an invitation, suggesting a more appropriate colleague is always helpful.
Paper evaluation: Important aspects
As a reviewer, your job is to provide clear and definitive recommendations to the editor. To do this, start by assessing whether the paper matches the purpose and scope of the journal. We assess the contribution of the paper and whether it is sufficiently important to be worthy of publication in that particular outlet. As journal standards vary widely, it is essential to understand the guidelines in the guidelines you are reviewing.
Next, we will look into the contents of the paper itself. Are there clear conceptual frameworks and hypotheses development? Measure whether the data is explained at a sufficient depth and whether empirical specifications are appropriate, up-to-date, and well-founded in previous literature. Are there any additional robustness checks that we need to do to make the analysis more persuasive? You also need to determine whether writing requires substantial modifications to improve clarity and consistency. Editors often recommend suggesting professional proofreaders to refine their language and style. We recommend suggesting that option as well.
specifically
Advising “revising and resubmitting” implicitly communicates to the editor that it makes a meaningful contribution, but is not published in its current format. However, if the revision is successful, it may be acceptable for publication. In this regard, your comments should provide the author with a well-defined path to meet that standard.
If the paper’s results appear to be incorrect, it is necessary to provide specific and objective reasons for concern rather than conveying general skepticism. Ambiguous comments are not very useful to the author and speculate on how to deal with feedback. For example, it is more constructive to suggest trying the Tobit model instead of simply noting that the paper is problematic with censored data. For more complex problems, providing additional references or methods can help guide the author to a solution.
Focus on the main goals: Improve your paper
Your criticism should always be constructive, even when you recommend rejection. In such cases, it is recommended to highlight one or two strengths of the manuscript and provide some sincere suggestions on how the author can overcome the shortcomings of the paper.
It’s not the job of a reviewer to tear paper and impress the editor with his own knowledge. Your goal is to make a real effort to help authors improve their paper. Think carefully about whether your comments enhance your analysis or simply “do the work” for the author.
Recognize and avoid bias
Double-blind peer reviews are common in economics, but it is often easier for reviewers to identify authors by searching for drafts that are not published online. You should avoid doing this because the author’s identity, particularly knowledge of institutional affiliation, seniority, or nationality, can introduce implicit bias into your assessment. Research suggests that female authors are kept to a higher standard, and that papers written by women may undergo a longer review process (Lundberg and Stearns, 2019). If you have an idea about who the author is, being aware of such potential biases will help ensure a fair process for everyone.
Become a reviewer you want to meet
Being kind and professional is an important aspect of the review process. Research in economics requires a considerable amount of time and effort, and has worked for many years on one paper. Unnecessarily strictness doesn’t serve a big purpose, but many people behave this way because it reflects their experiences as an author. Remember that every paper has its weaknesses and limitations. However, your role as a reviewer is to help the authors strengthen their work, and in doing so contribute to advancement in knowledge in the field.
reference
Lundberg, S. , & Stearns, J. (2019). Women in Economics: Stagnant Progress. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(1), 3-22.
Image credits: Wendlyn Jacober / Pexel / Getty Images
