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.
|
Journal of Applied Psychology 2021 Reviewer Awards
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.
This year, three ad hoc reviewers and five editorial board members were selected for the second annual 2022 award. We obviously have many other deserving reviewers and look forward to continuing this tradition in the years to come!
Please join me in congratulating the 2021 best reviewer award winners:
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
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 2020-2021 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.
This year, three ad hoc reviewers and five editorial board members were selected for the second annual 2022 award. We obviously have many other deserving reviewers and look forward to continuing this tradition in the years to come!
Please join me in congratulating the 2021 best reviewer award winners:
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
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 2020-2021 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.
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