Some guidelines for the critical reviewing of conceptual papers

Abstract

In sum, reviewers can play a key role in helping to mold the authors' ideas into a coherent and effective message. Submitted papers improve through the review process. And, while it doesn't always work to the authors' liking (e.g., rejected papers, endless rounds of revisions), and it does have its drawbacks (length of the review process, can't disseminate ideas quickly, difficulty in getting novel ideas accepted, etc.), it is generally regarded as the best mechanism available. The review process represents the community's best efforts at assuring that knowledge creation and dissemination are done effectively. A good review process ensures that the best ideas get exposed and published and it is hoped that good ones do not get mistakenly weeded out. Indeed, it is probably true to say that a good publication is constructed among authors, reviewers, and editors. Each must take his or her responsibility seriously. Each must also realize that the system only works when everyone contributes effectively. If you submit papers to any top level journal, you must be willing to perform review duties as well, and perform them in a timely and effective fashion. Not only is this necessary as your fair share and contribution to the community process, it also helps individuals learn how to build strong conceptual and theory papers. And even if you have not submitted papers to the journal, we might ask you to review papers for us if you possess the expertise needed to evaluate a particular submission. The journal not only needs good paper submissions, but good reviewers who complete good reviews. For those who have performed such duties for us, we thank you. For those yet to be asked, be patient. Your time is coming.