last updated:
06/12/2008

An official journal of the International Association for Relationship Research Published by Blackwell

PR Home Editorial Team Information for Authors Information for Reviewers Contents of Issues Ordering PR

Information for Reviewers by Rebecca Adams, Masthead Editor, 2007-2009 Categories of Reviewers Each manuscript is assigned to be reviewed by three or four reviewers, including: at least one member of the Editorial Board, one or more Ad Hoc reviewers, and a New Scholar reviewer (sometimes). Editorial Board members are well-established personal relationship scholars who advise the Editorial Team on journal policy and operations in addition to reviewing approximately 8 manuscripts per year, Ad Hoc reviewers are experts in one or more areas of personal relationship scholarship who occasionally review manuscripts, and New Scholar reviewers are personal relationship scholars who are graduate students, post docs, or in non-tenure track or other non-career track positions and are interested in learning by doing reviews occasionally. In keeping with PR’s international and interdisciplinary focus, action editors strive to assign each manuscript to reviewers, who along with himself or herself, represent at least two countries and two disciplines Steps of the Review Process Editor receives submission and assigns it to an action editor (herself or one of the Associate Editors) The action editor recruits 3-4 reviewers Reviewers read the manuscript, fill out both pages of a reviewer rating form, and return the latter to the action editor by the due date or earlier Action editor writes a decision letter and sends it and the non-confidential part of the reviews (second page) to the author and reviewers If paper is rejected (as is typical 75% of the time), the file on the submission is closed If the paper is accepted, the action editor and/or the Editor work out final revisions with author If the author is invited to revise and resubmit the paper, the action editor keeps the file open and, when the paper is resubmitted, assigns it to the same reviewers or a combination of the same and different reviewers The Functions of the Review Process The main goal of the review process is to maximize the quality of published research in the field of personal relationships The authors rely on reviewers to help them improve the quality of their manuscripts, whether they are ultimately to be published in Personal Relationships or elsewhere The action editors rely on reviewers to help them determine how the manuscript needs to be improved and to make a decision about whether the manuscript should be published in Personal Relationships By reading the decision letter written by the action editor and the other reviews, reviewers learn how to prepare a successful submission themselves (and how to write better reviews) Elements of a Constructive and Useful Review Confidential Aspects of the Review Recommendation to Action Editor Accept Accept with minor editorial revisions (no need for further review except by Editor) Accept conditional on revisions (no need for further review except by action editor and Editor Revise and resubmit (requiring further review by the same and/or new reviewers) Reject Reject with encouragement to submit a substantially revised manuscript to be treated as a new submission (these manuscripts are only sent out for review if the authors convince the Editor that additional data or theoretical re-conceptualization warrant considering it as a new submission; if a previously rejected paper has been revised enough to be consider a “new” submission, it is assigned to a new action editor and reviewers) Reject with encouragement to submit to another journal (paper is potentially publishable but not appropriate for PR) Reject Evaluation of the Manuscript on a five-point Likert Scale from very strong to very weak on the following topics: Appropriateness to PR Likelihood of Being Cited Theoretical Importance Originality and Creativity Quality of Literature Review Quality of Methods Quality of Data AnalysisClarity of Writing Comments to the Editor These comments are read only by the action editor and Editor These comments can therefore be more direct and blunt than comments that are to be shared with the author and other reviewers, but it is important that their substance does not deviate too much from the comments addressed to the author or it leaves the action editor in an awkward position This is a good place to give the action editor relevant background information (e.g., I don’t know much about . . ., I read this from my perspective as a . . . , I have a bias against . . . ) and to share insights (e.g., I suspect this was authored by a student, this person misunderstands the type of journal PR is, this paper would benefit from linguistic editing) Comments to the Author(s) (and to be shared with other reviewers) Sample Organization of Review Introduction to the Review Start with a brief description of the paper’s topic, method, and conclusions, highlighting the strengths of the manuscript Address the appropriateness of the manuscript for PR, the theoretical importance (and possibly clinical importance or relevance to policy) of the paper, the likelihood of it being cited, and how original and creative the submission is Address any general issues that manifest themselves throughout the paper (e.g., poor clarity of writing, lack of theoretical framework) Then discuss each section of the paper in the order in which they appear (usually introduction/rationale/literature review, methods, results, and discussion/conclusion), making it clear which revisions are essential, which are optional, which will require a great deal of additional work or are impossible without collecting new data, and which are minor (see below for “Questions to Address in Any Review”) Style of comments to author(s) Be constructive and make sure the tone is supportive and encouraging Illustrate stated criticisms with specific examples from the paper Suggest concrete solutions to identified problems where possible DO NOT say whether you think the paper should be accepted or rejected in your Comments to the Author(s) Questions to address in any review Is the theoretical, methodological, and/or practical rationale for the study clear and important? Is the literature review complete? Will this paper make a contribution to the literature? Are the hypotheses or research questions clearly articulated? Is the contribution original and creative? Do the authors clearly describe the research design, choose methods adequate to address the research questions and/or test the hypotheses, and provide justification for the methods they have chosen? Are the measures, sample, and recruitment procedures adequate? Are the analyses executed properly, are the results easy to understand, do tables and figures adhere to APA style and include appropriate information, and are the results meaningful and significant? If the study was quantitative, were appropriate significance tests reported? Should some of the analyses be eliminated or are additional analyses necessary? Do the authors adequately summarize their findings, integrate them into current theoretical (clinical, or policy) debates, make it clear what contribution they make, and address the limitations of their study? Are results interpreted correctly? Have alternative explanations been considered? Does the paper further our understanding of the phenomenon? Will it stimulate further research? Is the writing clear, concise, and correct, and is the paper well-organized? Did you enjoy reading the manuscript? Was it interesting? Is the paper too long or too short? Might it be more suitable as a brief report? Is the writing clear, concise, and correct, and is the paper well-organized? Did you enjoy reading the manuscript? Was it interesting? Is the paper too long or too short? Might it be more suitable as a brief report? Questions to address specifically when reviewing for PR Is the manuscript appropriate for PR? Manuscripts are appropriate that examine a wide range of personal relationships, including those between romantic or intimate partners, parents and children, siblings, classmates, coworkers, neighbors, and friends. Typically published work focuses on attributes of individual partners in personal relationships (e.g., personality factors or social positions as influences on relationship outcomes) at all stages of the life course, interactive relationship processes (i.e., behavioral, affective, or cognitive), the internal structure of dyads and networks, personal relationships in social contexts (e.g., families, workplaces, historical periods, cultures), and the consequences of personal relationships. In addition to original qualitative or quantitative research, theoretical or methodological contributions, integrative reviews, meta-analyses, comparative or historical studies, and critical assessments of the status of the field are welcome as submissions. Were the authors sensitive to the interdisciplinary composition of our readership? Did they explain discipline-specific concepts adequately enough for scholars from other disciplines to understand them? Is a strength of the manuscript that it is a product of interdisciplinary collaboration or a contribution to interdisciplinary scholarship? Did authors provide adequate descriptions of the context in which the study was conducted and the characteristics of the population from which the sample was drawn? If the sample is a convenience sample or the population is one that has been studied repeatedly, is an adequate justification included? Were the authors sensitive to the international composition of our audience? Is a strength of the manuscript that it is a contribution to our understanding of personal relationships across cultures, societies, or history? If appropriate, did the authors discuss the clinical, policy, or other practical implications of their findings? Evaluating a Revised and Resubmitted Manuscript If you indicated on a Reviewer Rating Form that you would be willing to review a revised version of a manuscript or if the action editor thinks it would be beneficial to have an additional scholar review such a manuscript, you may be invited to review a manuscript that has been revised and resubmitted to PR Reviewers who agree to review a revised and resubmitted manuscript will be sent the revised manuscript, the cover letter the author submits to the editor, the original reviews, and the initial decision letter When you review a manuscript an additional time, you should take particular care to ensure that each suggestion you made in your initial review was addressed, either through revision or provision of a justification for not accepting a recommendation Note that the cover letter from the corresponding author outlining what changes were made will be useful in completing this task, but it is important to read the text of the manuscript to confirm that the changes made adequately address your original concerns Although hopefully the original reviews identified most of the major issues that needed to be addressed through revision in order for the manuscript to be publishable, it is appropriate to raise additional issues the second (or third) time you review a manuscript The action editor will decide whether to ask the author(s) to incorporate these additional revisions Other Suggestions to Reviewers Do not agree to do a review that is entirely outside your areas of expertise (i.e., before accepting the assignment to review the article, make sure you have the background to help the author theoretically, substantively, or methodologically) If you are a new scholar, ask an advisor or mentor to provide you with feedback on your first few reviews before you submit them This is an opportunity to learn what standards other scholars apply to submissions and to improve your own reviewing style Whether you are a new or seasoned reviewer, be sure to read the other reviews of the paper and compare them to your own Be sure to submit your review by the due date or earlier so that the author does not have to wait unnecessarily o Although each reviewer’s part of the process is allocated only 5 weeks, it takes a great deal of time to assign an action editor, to recruit reviewers, for all reviewers to complete their assignments, and for the action editor to make a decision and write a decision letter Additional Reading Duck, S. (1993). Guidelines for new reviews for Journal of Social and Personal Relationships Epstein, S. (1995). What can be done to improve the journal review process. American Psychyologist, 50, 883-884. Fiske, D., & Fogg, L. (1990). But reviewers are making different criticisms of my paper! Diversity and uniqueness in reviewer comments. American Psychologist, 45, 591-598 Metts, S. (1999). Reviewing manuscripts: Advice to new relationships scholars Perlman, D., & Dean, E. (1987). The wisdom of Solomon: Avoiding bias in the publication review process. In D. N. Jackson & J. P. Rushton (Eds.), Scientific excellence: Origins and assessment (pp. 204-221). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Shebilski, L. (1997). How to review a journal article. ISSPR Bulletin, 13(2), 19-22. Tesser, A., & Martin, L. (2006). Reviewing empirical submissions to journals. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Reviewing scientific works in psychology (pp. 3-29). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.