Reviewer Resources.As any author will tell you, the high quality articles published in the journal do not typically start that way. It is through the review process that papers are developed , refined and improved. This is the hallmark of high quality peer reviewing and editorial oversight. Our vision is to eliminate the "negative Reviewer #2" experience by providing training and resources to our reviewers. Below you will find resources to help you become a more developmental reviewer.
|
Quality Reviews
|
| ||
- Methodological Checklists for Improving Research Quality and Reporting Consistency (Eby et al., 2020): https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2020.14
- General Reviewing Advice (Academy of Management): https://aom.org/research/publishing-with-aom/reviewer-resources
- Supporting Robust, Rigorous, and Reliable Reviewing as the Cornerstone of our Profession: Introducing a Competency Framework for Peer Review (Köhler et al., 2020): https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2019.121
- Introductory Reviewer Development Workshop (SIOP/CARMA): http://carmarmep.org/siop-carma-reviewer-series/
Being Developmental
- On Civility in Reviewing (Sternberg, 2002): www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/on-civility-in-reviewing
- Developing Our Authors (Ragins, 2014): https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0477
- The Developmental Reviewer (Hempel, 2015): https://doi.org/10.1017/S1740877600004113
- Raising the Bar for Developmental Reviewing (Ragins, 2017): https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0464
- From Boxing to Dancing: Creating a Developmental Editorial Culture (Ragins, 2017): https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492617726273
- SAGE Peer Review Ethics: https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/peer-review-ethics
DEI Resources & Bias in Reviewing
- Elsevier DEI Publishing Reviewer Guide: https://beta.elsevier.com/reviewer/role/edi?trial=true
- COPE Peer Review Process: https://publicationethics.org/peerreview
- COPE Webinar on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion: https://publicationethics.org/resources/webinar-diversity-equity-inclusion
- AOM Unconscious Bias in Peer Review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0shRhN4onLo
- APA Equity Diversity and Inclusion Toolkit: https://www.apa.org/pubs/authors/equity-diversity-inclusion-toolkit
Journal of Applied Psychology Reviewer Awards (2021-2023)
We are pleased to announce that the JAP leadership team created two annual awards to recognize the outstanding contributions of our editorial board and ad hoc reviewers. We have around 300 board members and 600 ad hoc reviewers, so this was a difficult and competitive process.
BEST EDITORIAL BOARD REVIEWERS (2023)
Nitya Chawla
Joo Hun Han
Zhenyu Liao
Fadel Matta
Katina Sawyer
BEST AD HOC REVIEWERS (2023)
Melissa Chamberlin
Ji Koung Kim
Lauren Locklear
BEST AD HOC REVIEWERS (2022)
Crystal Harold
Hun Whee Lee
Brian McCormick
BEST EDITORIAL BOARD REVIEWERS (2022)
James Beck
Lindsey Greco
Kerrie Unsworth
BEST AD HOC REVIEWERS (2021)
Anne Burmeister
Ke Michael Mai
Donald Schepker
BEST EDITORIAL BOARD REVIEWERS (2021)
Wendy Boswell
Chak Fu Lam
Blaine Landis
Elad Sherf
Julie McCarthy
BEST AD HOC REVIEWERS (2020)
Laurie Barclay
Melissa Robertson
Malte Runge
BEST EDITORIAL BOARD REVIEWERS (2020)
Mike Baer
Trevor Foulk
Jessica Methot
Lauren Simon
Michael Parke
Belle Ragins
Hettie Richardson
Lance Ferris
Nikos Dimotakis
Joel Koopman
Mark Maltarich
In the spirit of transparency, I want to share the process that we used in determining award winners. An Associate Editor subcommittee consisting of Alicia Grandey, Jonas Lang, and Byran Edwards administered the selection process.
The following criteria were used in selecting winners for both awards:
The selection process consisted of obtaining 2021-2022 records data from the journal editorial system on average reviewer rating, number of reviews complete, and timeliness. Once compiled, the subcommittee identified a shortlist of 20-25 candidates (considering diversity and minimizing bias that could be introduced if a single Associate Editor used a particular reviewer). The shortlist was then shared with the entire leadership team for review and comment. The subcommittee then examined submitted reviews and made final decisions. For one finalist, a subcommittee member had a potential conflict of interest so I rendered a decision on that individual after reviewing all of the material. I was not involved in the selection of any other award winners.
BEST EDITORIAL BOARD REVIEWERS (2023)
Nitya Chawla
Joo Hun Han
Zhenyu Liao
Fadel Matta
Katina Sawyer
BEST AD HOC REVIEWERS (2023)
Melissa Chamberlin
Ji Koung Kim
Lauren Locklear
BEST AD HOC REVIEWERS (2022)
Crystal Harold
Hun Whee Lee
Brian McCormick
BEST EDITORIAL BOARD REVIEWERS (2022)
James Beck
Lindsey Greco
Kerrie Unsworth
BEST AD HOC REVIEWERS (2021)
Anne Burmeister
Ke Michael Mai
Donald Schepker
BEST EDITORIAL BOARD REVIEWERS (2021)
Wendy Boswell
Chak Fu Lam
Blaine Landis
Elad Sherf
Julie McCarthy
BEST AD HOC REVIEWERS (2020)
Laurie Barclay
Melissa Robertson
Malte Runge
BEST EDITORIAL BOARD REVIEWERS (2020)
Mike Baer
Trevor Foulk
Jessica Methot
Lauren Simon
Michael Parke
Belle Ragins
Hettie Richardson
Lance Ferris
Nikos Dimotakis
Joel Koopman
Mark Maltarich
In the spirit of transparency, I want to share the process that we used in determining award winners. An Associate Editor subcommittee consisting of Alicia Grandey, Jonas Lang, and Byran Edwards administered the selection process.
The following criteria were used in selecting winners for both awards:
- Quality and developmental orientation of reviews (based on both Associate Editor review ratings and examination of actual reviews submitted)
- Number of completed reviews, declines and timeliness
The selection process consisted of obtaining 2021-2022 records data from the journal editorial system on average reviewer rating, number of reviews complete, and timeliness. Once compiled, the subcommittee identified a shortlist of 20-25 candidates (considering diversity and minimizing bias that could be introduced if a single Associate Editor used a particular reviewer). The shortlist was then shared with the entire leadership team for review and comment. The subcommittee then examined submitted reviews and made final decisions. For one finalist, a subcommittee member had a potential conflict of interest so I rendered a decision on that individual after reviewing all of the material. I was not involved in the selection of any other award winners.