Peer reviewed academic journals, like AMS Review, live and die by their ability to obtain high quality reviews of submitted manuscripts. However, academics are increasingly pressed for time, needing to publish their research, teach their classes, and provide service to their Department, Faculty/College and University to support their careers in terms of retention, tenure, and promotion. Amidst these responsibilities, as a service to the Academy, academics also are expected to provide reviews of manuscripts in order to move the intellectual trajectory of the domain forward. High quality reviewing, though, takes cognitive energy and is time consuming, which then interferes with other academic responsibilities. For these reasons, editors of peer-reviewed academic journals are finding it more and more difficult to obtain a sufficient number of high-quality reviews to make good decisions about submissions in a timely manner. The purpose of this article is to help all reviewers, but especially those reviewing conceptual articles, provide a high-quality review. Specifically, this article first defines what constitutes a “high quality review,” and suggests how reviewing can aid an academic’s own research, writing and career. It then defines the behaviors needed for effective reviewing for all manuscripts, termed the 5 R’s: roles, responsibilities, responses, reactions, and respect. It then provides a reviewing template for conceptual articles, given the special difficulties of peer reviewing such articles, and closes with a few additional pieces of advice to help with being efficient in reviewing, while being effective.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Allen, H., Boxer, E., & Cury, A. (2018). What does better peer review look like? Definitions, essential areas, and recommendations for better practice. Open Science Framework, 2018. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/4mfk2 .
Benos, D. J., Kirk, K. L., & Hall, J. E. (2003). How to review a paper. Advances in Physiology Education, 27(3), 47–52.
Bijmolt, T. H. A., & Pieters, R. (2001). Meta-analysis in marketing when studies contain multiple measurements. Marketing Letters, 12(2), 157–169.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2019). COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers Accessed on December 6, 2019.
Cooper, H. (2016). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Council of Science Editors (CSE). (2018). CSE’s white paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications. https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/ Accessed on December 6, 2019.
Crittenden, V. (2012). On the impactfuless of theory and review. AMS Review, 2(1), 1–4.
Crittenden, V., & Peterson, R. A. (2011). The AMS review. AMS Review, 1(1), 1–3.
Davis, M. S. (1971). That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1(4), 309–344.
Elsevier and Sense About Science (2019). Quality, trust and peer review: researchers’ perspectives 10 years on. https://senseaboutscience.org/activities/peer-review-survey-2019/ Accessed on December 6, 2019.
Elsevier Editors Share their Top Reviewing Tips. (2019). https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers-update/story/tutorials-and-resources/elsevier-editors-share-their-top-reviewing-tips-part-1 Accessed on December 3, 2019.
Elsevier Peer Review: The Nuts and Bolts. (2015). https://www.elsevier.com/authors-update/story/peer-review/peer-review-nuts-and-bolts Accessed on December 3, 2019.
Elsevier Quick Guide: How to Review Manuscripts. (2019). https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/websites/elsevier_publishingcampus/files/Guides/Quick_guide_how_to_review.pdf Accessed on December 3, 2019.
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2012). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.
Gosden, H. (2003). ‘Why not give us the full story?’ Functions of referees’ comments in peer review of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 87–101.
Holbrook, M. B. (1986). A note on sadomasochism in the review process: I hate when that happens. Journal of Marketing, 50(3 (July)), 104–108.
Hütten, A. S. J., Salge, T. O., Niemand, T., & Siems, F. U. (2018). Advancing relationship marketing theory: Exploring customer relationships through a process-centric framework. AMS Review, 8, 39–57.
Kelly, J., Sadeghieh, T., & Adeli, K. (2014). Peer review in scientific publications: Benefits, critiques, and a survival guide. The Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 25(3), 227–243.
Lee, A. S. (1995). Reviewing a manuscript for publication. Journal of Operations Management, 13(1), 87–92.
Lehmann, D. R., & Winer, R. S. (2017). The role and impact of reviewers on the marketing discipline. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45, 587–592.
Lucey B. (2013). “Peer review: How to get it right – 10 tips.” The Guardian. Web. www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/sep/27/peer-review-10-tips-research-paper Accessed on December 9, 2019.
Lunde, M. B. (2018). Sustainability in marketing: A systematic review unifying 20 years of theoretical and substantive contributions (1997 – 2016). AMS Review, 8, 85–110.
Lynch, J. G. (1998). Presidential address: Reviewing. Advances in Consumer Research, 25, 1–6.
MacInnis, D. (2003). Responsibilities of a good reviewer: Lessons learned from kindergarten. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 344–345.
MacKenzie, S. B. (2003). The dangers of poor construct conceptualization. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 323–326.
McNair, R., Phuong, H.A.L., Cseri, L. and Szekely, G. (2019). Peer review of manuscripts: A valuable yet neglected tool for early-career researchers. Hindawi Education Research International Volume 2019, https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1359362.
Meadows, A., & Wulf, K. (2019). Quality is multi-dimensional: How many ways can you define quality in peer review. The Scholarly Kitchen, (September 16). https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/09/16/quality-is-multi-dimensional-how-many-ways-can-you-define-quality-in-peer-review/.
Moorman, C. (2019). Writing an outstanding review. https://www.ama.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Writing-an-Outstanding-Review.pdf. Accessed December 11, 2019.
Mulligan, A., Hall, L., & Raphael, E. (2013). Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 132–161.
Nichols, N. L., & Sasser, J. M. (2014). The other side of the submit button: How to become a reviewer for Scientific Journals. The Physiologist, 57(2), 88–91.
Ostrom, A. L. (2003). Achieving “reviewer readiness”. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 337–340.
Paltridge, B. (2015). Referees’ comments on submissions to peer-reviewed journals: When is a suggestion not a suggestion? Studies in Higher Education, 40(1), 106–122.
Pierson, C. (2015). Reviewing journal manuscripts: An easy to follow guide for any nurse reviewing journal manuscripts for publication. Wiley Blackwell. http://naepub.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/24329-Nursing-ReviewingMSS12ppselfcover_8.5x11_for_web.pdf. Accessed on December 10, 2019.
PLOS. (2019). Reviewer center: How to write a peer review. https://reviewers.plos.org/resources/how-to-write-a-peer-review/. Accessed on December 10, 2019.
Pratt, M. G. (2008). Fitting oval pegs into round holes: Tensions in evaluating and publishing qualitative research in top-tier north American journals. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 481–509.
Pratt, M. G. (2009). For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856–862.
Priem, R., & Rasheed, A. (2006). Reviewing as a vital professional service. In Y. Baruch, S. Sullivan, & H. Schepmyer (Eds.), Winning reviews: A guide for evaluating scholarly writing. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Publishing Research Consortium (PRC). (2016). Publishing research consortium peer review survey 2015. publishingresearchconsortium.com › 57-prc-peer-review-survey-2015 Accessed on December 6, 2019.
Publons. (2018). The global state of peer review survey results. https://publons.com/community/gspr Accessed on December 6, 2019.
Rand, W., Rust, R. T., & Kim, M. (2018). Complex systems: Marketing’s new frontier. AMS Review, 8, 111–127.
Rindfleisch, A. (2020). Transaction cost theory: Past, present and future. AMS Review, 10, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-019-00151-x.
Rodriguez-Bravo, B., Nicholas, D., Herman, E., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Watkinson, A., Xu, J., Abrizah, A., & Swigon, M. (2017). Peer review: The experience and views of early career researchers. Learned Publishing, 30(4), 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1111.
Rojewski, J. W., & Domenico, D. M. (2005). The art and politics of peer review. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 20(2), 41–54.
Seals, D. R., & Tanaka, H. (2000). Manuscript peer review: A helpful checklist for students and novice referees. Advances in Physiology Education, 23(1), 52–58.
Sett, R. K. (2018). Market orientation – Firm performance link in a dynamic environment: Looking inside the black box. AMS Review, 8, 163–179.
Singh, J. (2003). A reviewers’ gold. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 331–336.
Sipilä, J., Tarkiainen, A., & Sundqvist, S. (2018). Toward an improved conceptual understanding of consumer ambivalence. AMS Review, 8, 147–162.
Smith, D. C. (2003). The importance and challenges of being interesting. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 319–322.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). There is no place for hostile reviews. International Journal of Clinical & Health Psychology, 3(1), 159–161.
Taylor, S. (2003). Big R (versus little r) reviewers: The anonymous coauthor. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 341–343.
Taylor and Francis. (2015). Peer review in 2015: A global view. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/peer-review/peer-review-global-view/ Accessed on December 6, 2019.
Tennant, J. (2018). The state of the art in peer review. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 365. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fny204.
Thyroff, A., Siemens, J. C., & Murray, J. B. (2018). Constructing a theoretical framework for the process of innovation legitimation. AMS Review, 8, 180–194.
Vargo, S. (2019). Personal communication. September 10.
Warne, V. (2016). Rewarding reviewers- sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained. Learned Publishing, 29, 41–50.
Wiley Step by Step Guide to Reviewing a Manuscript. (2019). https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/how-to-perform-a-peer-review/step-by-step-guide-to-reviewing-a-manuscript.html#10. Accessed December 10, 2019.
Wiley Top Tips for Reviewers. (2019). https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/how-to-perform-a-peer-review/top-tips-for-peer-reviewers.html. .
Wilson, J. (2012). Peer review, the nuts and bolts: A guide for early career researchers. Sense About Science: UK. https://senseaboutscience.org/activities/peer-review-the-nuts-and-bolts/. Accessed September 20, 2019.
Woodall, T., Rosborough, J., & Harvey, J. (2018). Proposal, project, practice, pause: Developing a framework for evaluating smart domestic product engagement. AMS Review, 8, 58–74.
Workman Jr., J. P. (1993). Marketing’s limited role in new product development in one computer systems firm. Journal of Marketing Research, XXX(November), 405–421.
Workman Jr., J. P., Homburg, C., & Gruner, K. (1998). Marketing organization: An integrative framework of dimensions and determinants. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 21–41.
Yadav, M. (2014). Enhancing theory development in marketing. AMS Review, 4, 1–4.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Griffin, A., Barczak, G. Effective reviewing for conceptual journal submissions. AMS Rev 10, 36–48 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00162-z
- Peer review
- Conceptual articles