You are on page 1of 2

Referee  Reports  for  Research  Journal  Submissions1  

Examples  below  are  authentic.  They  represent  referee  comments  on  a  paper  submission  to  a  research  journal  which  resulted  in  a  revise-­‐and-­‐resubmit  (R&R)  
decision.  Identifying  information  has  been  removed.  Accounting  Journal  and  Marketing  Journal  are  pseudonyms  rather  than  titles  of  actual  publications.  
Move  

1  

2  

 

Subordinate  Steps   Accounting  Journal  
Reviewer  (#1)  

Accounting  Journal  
Reviewer  (#2)  

Marketing  Journal  
Reviewer  (#1)  

Marketing  Journal  
Reviewer  (#2)  

 

 

This  paper  investigates  how  the  
experience  and  perceived  
knowledge  advantage  of  older  
client  management  intimidates  
younger,  less  experienced  audit  
staff  and,  consequently,  affects  
the  content  of  the  audit  
workpapers.  The  primary  
experimental  results  suggest  …  

This  study  examines  how  the  
interaction  between  staff-­‐level  
auditors  and  client  management  
affect  auditing  students’  
perceptions  and  their  decisions  
regarding  the  collection  of  audit  
evidence.  The  study  first  uses  a  
survey  methodology…  

The  manuscript  …  aims  at  
comparing  two  competing  
conceptualizations  of  sales  
controls  with  respect  to  their  
predictive  validity.  The  
manuscript  claims  to  present  
three  "intriguing"  findings:  
(1)  "[T]he  O&A  index  …  

 

 

I  believe  the  research  question  is  
very  interesting.  Further,  the  
experiment  is  well  done  and  
there  are  some  interesting  
results.  

I  believe  that  examining  the  social  
dynamics  between  staff  auditors  
and  members  of  the  client  
management  is  a  potentially  
interesting  research  question.  In  
that  respect,  the  issues  raised  in  
the  paper  are  of  relevance  to  
audit  practice  and  to  accounting  
research.  In  general,  I  feel  that  
the  
paper  has  been  reasonably  well-­‐
written.  

NA  

You  spell  out  the  need:  (1)  to  
reconcile  O&A’s  Behavioral  versus  
Outcome  control  measure  with  
J&C’s  Output  and  Process  control  
measures,  they  should  be  
measuring  nearly  the  same  
concepts,  and  (2)  to  evaluate  if  
the  effect  of  these  two  controls  
on  one  of  your  performance  
criterion  is  not  linear  but  an  
inverted  U.  
 
NA  

Summarizing  
paper  
submission  

Providing  
positive  
feedback  

 

                                                                                                                       
1

 This  table  appears  in  a  discussion  of  reviews  for  journal  submissions  on  ProsWrite.com.    

 

1  

3  

Commenting  
on  negative  
quality  
issues  

4  

Maintaining  
goodwill  

3a  

Providing  
interpretations  

While  I  agree  staff  auditors’  
attempt  to  gain  approval  from  
the  client,  they  also  attempt  to  
gain  approval  from  their  superiors  
on  the  audit  team.  

3b  

Posing  questions  

NA  

3c  

Making  
suggestions  for  
revision  

I  think  your  discussion  may  
address  this  line  of  thinking  by  
discussing  “self-­‐doubt  in  
abilities  and  knowledge”,  but  I  
think  the  discussion  will  be  more  
complete  if  the  desire  to  
of  staff  to  manage  their  superiors’  
impressions  is  explicitly  discussed.  
This  could  even  be  in  a  footnote.  

 

 

NA  

Incremental  contribution  and  
Theory  
1.  While  the  premise  of  the  paper  
is  that  .  .  .  I  feel  that  the    
development  of  theory  does  not  
…  
Isn't  it  more  likely  that  if  a  staff  
auditor  does  not  follow  the  audit  
plan  and  does  not  seek  out  
appropriate  evidence,  he/she  will  
encounter  …  
The  paper  needs  to  develop  this  
argument  by  using  auditing  
literature  and  then  compare  and  
contrast  that  with  the  
expectations  that  would  be  
developed  from  psychology.  

NA  

 
 

 

2  

It  surprises  me  that  the  authors  
were  surprised  by  the  second  
finding,  .  .  .  

NA  

If  this  has  been  known  for  almost  
a  decade,  why  then  call  it  
"intriguing"?  Isn't  the  finding  then  
a  mere  confirmation?  

NA  

I  think  the  authors  should  try  to  
explain  it  in  a  better  way.  
 
…some  improvements  are  
recommendable.  The  authors  
should  always  report  both  
measures  of  internal  consistency  
reliability  …  Moreover,  the  
authors  should  rule  out  the  
possibility  that  the  nonlinear  
effect  is  only  a  methodological  
artifact  (e.g.,  roof  effect).  
NA  

…  you  need  to  extract  
“Extent  of  Supervision”  and  
“Absence  of  Bottom-­‐Line  
Orientation”  from  their  index—
they  resemble  Process  control  
and  Output  control  (flipped),  
respectively,  from  J&C.  You  could  
then  evaluate  if  the  two  
process  measures  and  the  two  
output  measures  share  greater  
association  than  a  process  and  
output  measure,  …  
Through  this,  and/or  similar  
analysis,  I  feel  you  have  the  
potential  of  creating  a  good,  
strong,  thoughtful  paper.