Audiences: Helping the Writer and Editor

 T

his module will discuss how your review serves dual purposes: to enable the editor to make a decision on the manuscript and to help the author to improve their manuscript. They are your immediate audience for the review.

Reviews have two audiences: the editor who assigned you the review and the manuscript author.

Wilkes and Kravitz (1995) found that half of the editors they surveyed about the review process relied solely on the recommendations of peer reviewers in making manuscript decisions (as cited in Callaham, Wears, & Waeckerle, 1998). Given this reliance, it is hard to overstate how important the reviewer is to the editor and the fate of the manuscript. Ultimately, the editor needs to know if this article is worth investing the time with the author and meritorious of valuable space in the journal.

Typically, there are four possible outcomes for a submission: Accept, Accept with Revisions, Revise and Resubmit, and Reject, although decisions and labels might vary depending on the journal.

Let’s Look at Each One:

Accept 

An acceptance upon first submission. This response is not all that common. This would be a paper that is essentially ready for publication.

Accept with revisions

Accept with revisions means that this paper will be published but the reviewer/editor is requesting small changes, usually minor.

Revise and resubmit

Sometimes this decision is offered when there are some major areas to be addressed. It is not necessarily a guarantee of publication, but it intimates that the reviewers or editor sees something of value in the manuscript and has hope that with revisions it can be publishable.

Reject

Manuscripts that receive a rejection by the editor will not receive publication in the journal. However, the review and feedback that accompanies that rejection can still be important for authors as your comments and explanation of the recommendation for rejection can help the author to see weaknesses within their work, ultimately allowing them to revise and improve it so that it can be submit to another journal for publication.

Your job as a reviewer is to be honest but also to not be overly critical or harsh. Donmoyer (2011) found that as an editor his assigned reviewers were often in two camps: what he refers to as the “good ship lollipop” camp consisting of the reviewers who only praised and did not provide any constructive or critical feedback and the “ogres” who provided criticism that was constructive but also needlessly harsh (p. 243-44). The ideal reviewer is somewhere between these two poles, offering kind words of encouragement where merited, balanced with constructive and useful feedback for the author.

Ultimately, your review also impacts the potential readers of the article and knowledge seekers within the discipline.

References

Callaham, M. L., Wears, R. L., & Waeckerle, J. F. (1998). Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 32(3), 318-322.

Donmoyer, R. (2011). Why writers should also be reviewers. In T. S. Rocco & T. Hatcher (Eds.), The Handbook of Scholarly Writing and Publishing. (pp. 239-250). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.