Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Becoming A Reviewer Romanelli 1996

    Uploaded by

    Eduardo E. Aguiñaga Maldonado
    9 views6 pages
    Becoming reviewer

    Original Title

    Becoming a Reviewer Romanelli 1996

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Becoming reviewer

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    9 views6 pages

    Becoming A Reviewer Romanelli 1996

    Uploaded by

    Eduardo E. Aguiñaga Maldonado
    Becoming reviewer

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 6
    Peter J. Frost M. Susan Taylor Exitors Rhythms of Academic Life Personal Accounts of Careers in Academia Foundations for Organzational Science Sipe Pbk Sees SAGE Publications international Educational and Protessional Publisher Thousand aks London New Delhi itv Becoming a Reviewer LESSONS SOMEWHAT PAINFULLY LEARNED Elaine Romanelli A item tin terre tres mane Scripts siting on my desk awaiting r= view. Oneisalread late, and Tam fealing guilty Two are due within the next week, and T am {cling pressured. itor protesations notsith- standing, know tht new manusripts wil ar tive within a week or two of my ceturing these {am also dimly aware of several manuscripts under revision that wll probably return to my deck for second review sometime inthe near future In morethan 10 years of reviewing now, itseems that there have een only a few short Petods when Thave not hada least one man script to review: It strikes me, then, that one of the most basic challenges of reviewing is han- dling the ubiquitous deadline, The question 1 hae struggled with Guting al that ie is how to.write «good review efficiently. What does effcency mean it means that the review is begun and completed in a rdatively short period. There are many ways to do this ‘One way that Ihave heard espoused by many colleagues is forthe reviewer just star writ ing comments, section by section, paragraph by paragraph, as many as are needed, until the centize manuscript has been addressed. For this method, only one thorough reading is require. Another way also frequently espoused, is to skim the manuscript quickly, making notes sbout important problems or questions until two of three, or some number deemed suficint by the reviewer have been found. The reviewer can then Simply ste up these few central problems and recommend revision or rejection depending on the severity of the problems. In those rare cases when the reviewer finds few ot no major prob- lems, he o she can note this fact, point out afew smajor contributions, and recommend acceptance Taleve that there are postive aspects to both «hese approaches. The fis iscertaaly thorough ‘AUTHORS NOTE: This eta fret appened in Publishing in the Ongeniasional Scenes (2nd ed, edited by LL ‘Commings and Peer Frost (Sage Publications 1995). 263 “284 ‘The author will be treated toa detailed exposi- tion of virtually every question and issue thet occurced to the reviewer. The second is prob- ably very effective for gatekeeping for the jour- nal, Manuscripts that exhibit afew basic prob- Jems need revision. Manuscripts that exhibit ‘more than a few probably merit rejection, be- cavse th likelihood of suecessful revision tends to below. I dont believe, however, that either approach satisfies an objective of writing a good review efficiently. In my experience (and I have ‘tied all the ways), the fist approach iscompre~ hensive, but fails to clarify key problems that the author should address The second approach issatisfactory for evaluation and probably points ‘out some of the central difficulties, but fails to provide constructive help. Sowhat sa good review? Today, think there are some rather straightforward answers to this question, al of which, | must acknowledge, are ‘well presented in the major journals’ “instruc tions to reviewers” A good review clearly iden- tifies key contributiors and problems in the manuscript. A good review provides construc- tive suggestions to the cuthor for improvingthe manuscript. A good review provides consistent support for a recommendation to the editor about the disposition of the manuscript, and ddoes s0 without necessarily revealing the ree~ ‘ommendation. Unfortunately, although these “objectives are straightorward, and I have al- ways understood them in my mind, they have not been easy to achieve in a practical sense. Nobody taught me how to spot key con tions quickly. Nobody aught me the difference between constructive criticism—although it seems like {remember something from fifth grade on this—and just an elaborated lst of papers deficiencies. Like too many aspects of an academics job, the good review can be de- scribed, but the lessons for writing one are left to individual experimentation, self-doubt, and random conclusions thas been an interesting task, in contem- plating this esay, to consider what Ihave learned about reviewing, and when Ihave leaned it. In keeping with the motivations for this book, 1 think the best way I can tell the story of my learning is through the personal “passages” | have experienced. As I look back at literally Inside of teviewy what is ust clea is iat the audience for the reviews—the audience in ‘my mind, of course—has changed quite sub- MIDDLE RHYTHMS: TRADITIONAL PATHS stantially. Where Lonce wrote for editors, I now ‘write for authors. More on that below. In part, the audience has changed because Ihave grown ‘more secure and more confident in my ability to write a good review. In part also, however, the audience has changed because Ihave grown ‘more caring about the objectives of my reviews. ‘The fellowing sections identify the changes in the audiencesand describe thelessons that have promoted the changes, First Reviews: Writing for Editors received my frst manuscript to review when {I wasstilla doctoral student. [feltboth honored and challenged by the assignment. I had no published papers, only one book chapter cepted, and just afew conference presentations. Like most academics in the early stages of their careers, had dreams of becoming a well-known and well-respected member of my profession, As observed my mentors, saw that they spent rather large amounts of time reviewing manu- seripts. They were proud of being invited to serve asmembersof editorial boards of top-tier journals. As 1 scanned the lists of names on editorial boards, lsaw that they comprised alot of famous people whose names I also saw as authors of articles in the journals. Reviewing, apparently, was a route to status. | wanted to become a reviewer. ‘Thus when I got that first manuscript—and Tam a litle embarrassed to say this—before ever reading a word, Lhad only one objective: to get a second manuscript. Who gets manu- scripts, of course, is controlled by editors, [had to figure out how to writea review that would impress the editor. In truth, I hadn't a clue, thought I had to show that 1 was up on my literature, and that I knew the relevant research, questions. thought I should demonstrate com- petenceat research methods. No fatal flaw should {et by me. In keeping with the “instructions to reviewers to take into account clarity of writ- ing,” I supposed I should also help the authors to write more clearly. Thus I set out to com- ment, having read the paper maybe once, on virtually every aspect of the manuscript, Needless 1 say flcieney was nwvere ot ‘my mind (I didn't know then that it would be a problem to worry about). I spent at least @ Becoming a Reviewer ‘week worrying about the review and writing it, all the while ignoring the dissertation proposal 1 was supposed to be writing looked up and read many of the papers important references. “hat first review was more than eight single= spaced pages long, organized according to sub- headings used by the author. I patiently ex- plained prablems in each ofthe sections and, ‘with some pedantry, described how the author ould do better. [didn't know then, and I don't know ow, who that author was, bt Thereby offer an apology ‘As Took back atthe review (yes still ave 1p), think maybe the only objective it met was thoroughness. Atleast the editor got plenty of ful for the rejection thatthe paper received. The review was highly evaluative. Although I cffeed many suggestions for improvement, I dont believe the author got much constructive help fora revision. Mainly, I erticized A few months later, I received that second ‘manuscript to review—and then T got a thied, and a fourth, Apparenty,1 was now a reviewer ollowed much the same procedures as before inevewing the new manuscripts, but two things seemed wrong, Fist Iwas beginning to notice, and feel frustrate, that reviewing took an aw- ful lot of time, Iwas reading alot of atiles— authors references—that had litle to do with ‘my oven esearch, and the reading didn't seem tobe helping much with the reviewing anyway I was also beginning to notice that editors were only once ina while mentioning my eviews in ther letters to the authors. It isa strange act of reviewing that the only feedback a reviewer ever gets directly on an individual review isthe editors leter to the author. How come my comments weren't guiding the editor's deci sions and insteuctions? thought that maybe my reviews weren't sufficiently tothe point. Almost certainly, this ‘was true. Peshape my reviews should focus more

    You might also like