The art of scholarly reviewing: Principles and practices

Marijn Janssen, F.E. Bannister

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialScientificpeer-review

4 Citations (Scopus)
50 Downloads (Pure)

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 - 2019

Bibliographical note

Green Open Access added to TU Delft Institutional Repository ‘You share, we take care!’ – Taverne project https://www.openaccess.nl/en/you-share-we-take-care Otherwise as indicated in the copyright section: the publisher is the copyright holder of this work and the author uses the Dutch legislation to make this work public.

Fingerprint

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

Cite this