Guidelines for Reviewers
1. Timeliness in reviewing is essential.
Many submissions are from junior faculty whose tenure or promotion might depend on the outcome of a review. Please try to meet the deadlines given for reviews. If you cannot meet the deadline, please let the BEQ office know (BEQmanagingedit@easternct.edu).
You should submit your review either by (a) copying and pasting the text of your review into the space provided, or (b) uploading an Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) format version of it (use of .pdf files rather than word processor files helps to preserve your anonymity; BEQ does not accept .doc or .docx files). If you submit a .pdf file, be sure to open the file properties window, delete any identifying information, and then save the file again. When you start the process of submitting your review, you will be asked to update your contact information. If you have problems, either contact the Editorial Express office (using the contact information provided on the web page), or contact the managing editor (BEQmanagingedit@easternct.edu).
3. Regarding Your Comments for Authors
- Do not include overall recommendations in your comments to the authors (“This paper is publishable,” “This paper is excellent,” “This paper should not be published,” etc.). These general recommendations should only appear on the evaluation form that the editor reads. Reviewers often disagree; it is the editor’s job to make an overall recommendation about publishing a manuscript.
-
Please number each comment. This makes it much easier for editors and authors to discuss specific concerns and issues in a manuscript.
-
Please cite page numbers when referring to specific sections of the manuscript.
-
Authors will receive an anonymous copy of your comments. Always be polite, scholarly, detailed, and constructive. Use a professional style in preparing your comments. Avoid disparaging interjections, ad hominem remarks, and offensive exclamations. Do not use your review as an opportunity to promote your own work unless it is clearly and directly relevant to the manuscript under review.
-
Always talk about the paper, not the author. Scrutinize the issues and ideas, and not the author. Your review should reflect your scholarly judgment and competence.
-
Be consistent; don’t write a very promising set of comments to the author, and then say very negative things about the manuscript to the editor (or vice versa).
-
When you make recommendations to an author, provide enough detail for the author to understand why you make the recommendation. (Don’t say “You should discuss Weber’s work.” Do say “You should discuss Weber’s theory of the relationship between capitalism and Protestantism, because the social dynamics described in that theory are very similar to the social dynamics you are discussing.”)
-
Even if you think a manuscript is seriously flawed, try to give the author suggestions as to how it might be improved. Also be sure to identify the strengths of a paper, and consider whether and how those strengths might be salvaged.
-
Authors whose first language is not English: Sometimes you will receive a manuscript which obviously is written by someone whose first language is not English. In these cases, please be sure to distinguish, as best you can, between the quality of writing and quality of ideas. Writing problems in an otherwise insightful paper, for example, could be fixed in revision, or by partnering with a coauthor whose first language is English.
4. Dealing With Disciplinary Standards and Differences
Business Ethics Quarterly is a multidisciplinary journal, publishing articles from a variety of disciplinary perspectives in the humanities and sciences. Many manuscripts are sent to reviewers representing a mix of academic disciplines. BEQ has high expectations for the quality of submissions, and the editors and readers expect that manuscripts will meet high quality standards appropriate to the scholarly disciplines the manuscripts represent. Business Ethics Quarterly also is an interdisciplinary journal, in that it seeks to promote conversation and cross-fertilization among the various scholarly endeavors that have something to say about business ethics. Thus in addition to expecting that manuscripts meet high discipline-specific standards, BEQ also expects manuscripts to be reasonably accessible to a readership that reflects multiple disciplinary backgrounds. Consequently, manuscripts also should be evaluated according to how well they make accessible, or “translate,” the sometimes technical perspectives of particular disciplines. For example, empirical studies should be written in such a way that non-empirically trained readers can read and understand the theoretical discussion, skip the methods and analysis sections of a manuscript (trusting that the authors, editors and reviewers made good judgments regarding methods and analysis) and resume reading the concluding discussions (starting with a summary of the empirical findings).
5. Uncertainty About Some Aspects of Manuscript
If you are uncertain about some aspects of the maunscript or think certain aspects of a manuscript are outside your expertise, please let the editor know. For example, if you are obviously one of the social science reviewers on a manuscript, yet the particular methodology used in the paper is unfamiliar to you, please let the editor know.
6. Manuscripts Should Be Considered Confidential
Under no circumstances should you distribute them further, or make any other use of them, without first contacting the editor, who will then discuss the request with the author.
|
