RSM: You received the Outstanding Reviewer award because the editorial team appreciates your reviews for being high-quality, developmental and on time. Can you explain what it means to be a developmental reviewer for an academic journal? What does it involve?
First, let me preface my answers by emphasising how humbled I am by the awards. It always feels surreal to see my name among the people I admire most in the field.
Now, to your question: a developmental review means reading the paper closely, identifying the theoretical or phenomenon-related nugget, and helping the author polish it into a diamond. These reviews are characterised by their developmental (rather than destructive or overly critical) approach.
RSM: The AMR also honoured you with the Outstanding Bridge Reviewer Mentor award. What does being a Bridge Reviewer mentor entail?
The programme trains aspiring reviewers to conduct developmental reviews for top conceptual journals, which differs from reviewing empirical work. I am not sure AMR was the first outlet to design such a programme. Still, after some iterations, it seems very successful, especially as human reviewers become scarce amid AI-related work that is collapsing the journal ecosystem.
The programme offers a learning environment where aspiring reviewers can build key skills through different modules. After they complete this, they wait for a mentor, a member of the journal’s Editorial Review Board, to send them a real article to review, usually a manuscript the mentor has recently reviewed. The mentee then has a month to complete the review, mirroring the timeline they would follow in a real review. After the review is completed, it is sent back to the mentor but is not included in the reviews sent to the article’s authors and does not influence the editor’s decision in any way. At this point, the mentor sends the editorial decision letter to the mentee, who is asked to reflect on what they did right and what they could have improved. The whole process ends with a video call between the mentor and the mentee, where they discuss the review and the whole process.
RSM: Can you explain how the peer review process works from behind the scenes?
The process is straightforward. Editors usually include a member of the Review Board on the team of reviewers they invite. For me, a thorough review takes about a full day: reading the paper closely, thinking it through and writing the review. Reviewers make recommendations, and the editor makes the final decision. The process is double-blind, meaning reviewers do not know who the authors are and the authors do not know who the reviewers are. However, the editor is not blind to the identities of those involved. In that sense, it is interesting to see how some editors follow reviewers’ comments and recommendations more closely than others. Every paper is a world in itself.
RSM: Do you get your research reviewed yourself? If so, how does it feel to be on the other side of the review process?
As a researcher, I have my work regularly reviewed. It is always a good reminder that it is worth spending time on reviews and that a thoughtful, developmental review can make a difference.
RSM: Are some papers difficult to review? Why?
Some papers are more difficult to review than others. Sometimes it is a matter of topic fit. As a member of the Editorial Review Board, I review a wide range of topics, some of which require a bit more reading. Lately, I have found it increasingly challenging to review manuscripts that seem to rely heavily on AI-generated text. My impression is that this can sometimes flatten the theorising, making it harder to identify the theoretical contribution.
RSM: What makes a paper enjoyable to review?
I find it very enjoyable when I encounter a clearly human paper that has been thought through and carefully written, maintains the human texture of the argument, and uses constructs that work together to articulate a clear argument.
RSM: Are you busy with other reviews now?
Yes, I currently have a couple of reviews on my desk.
RSM: As an award-winning reviewer, what advice do you have for academics who are submitting to peer-reviewed journals?
Try to identify the nugget of your paper and present it as clearly as possible. Also, try to preserve your human voice and embrace the struggle that comes with theorising. In a sea of AI-written papers that all sound and feel the same, a human manuscript stands out.
RSM: What about advice to those considering becoming a reviewer?
Read many papers in the journal that you want to review for to understand what gets published; try the Bridge Reviewer program in AMR – I started this way – and reach out to colleagues in editorial roles to see if they are looking for reviewers. Once you start reviewing, be developmental and always deliver your reviews on time. There is beauty in helping develop the field, even amid the sea of submissions flooding the system.
