New piece on: How Reviewers Really Judge Manuscripts

Editorial on: How Reviewers Really Judge Manuscripts

Our editorial discusses what reviewers are looking for when they make comments and suggestions on the manuscripts they receive for review. Contributors responded to an open invitation to reflect on the review process: what do they look for in each part of a manuscript (from introduction to conclusions), what are the mistakes that authors sometimes make, and what advice do they have to authors preparing their manuscripts for submission. Contributors also provided several overall comments on writing style, on making a good first impression, and on the need to address reviewer comments thoroughly in a revision.

In particular, the editorial considers:

• The hook/positioning.
• Up-front statement of theoretical and managerial contributions.
• Structured introduction.
• Critical literature reviews.
• Clearly written and well-supported hypotheses.
• Construct definitions and dimensionality.
• Directional hypotheses and conflicting predictions.
• Issues in using quantitative methodology.
• Issues in using qualitative methodology.
• Readability and jargon.
• Construct measures and definition alignment.
• Interaction terms.
• First impression matters.
• Work with the reviewers.

Our editorial complements earlier editorials about writing and revising manuscripts, as it presents the perspectives of several experienced and respected reviewers, and provides insights on specifically what satisfies or frustrates them when reviewing manuscripts.

Please visit: Lindgreen, A. and Di Benedetto, C.A. (2020), “How reviewers really judge manuscripts,” Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.04.002