Peer Review

Peer review is a cornerstone of academic publishing; but it is also highly resource intensive and does not always work as intended. So it was good to be reminded this week that it is worth the time and effort to get it right, especially when the outcome is a rejection.

Specifically, while it is common for authors to want to thank a reviewer or associate editor for feedback that leads to publication – this week we got a much more unusual request. An author whose work we had just rejected asked us to thank the AE for the “kindest, most thoughtful, rejection that my co-authors and I have received”. 

And when we did share these sentiments with the AE they responded with “As I’m sure you all know MUCH MUCH more than I do, it is never easy to reject a manuscript.  The work that goes into producing research and submitting manuscripts, even if the work is not at its best, requires a lot of time, energy, and sacrifice.  As such, whenever I get the notifications that the final decision is to reject, and that the decision has gone out to the authors, I get the queasy feeling of knowing that someone’s work has not gained the favor they’d hoped for.  Important decisions that must go forth, of course…but when I signed up to serve in AE capacities, where my decision and viewpoint would carry a bit more weight in the publication process, I personally committed to being as mindful, delicate, and constructive in those decisions as possible.”

That sums it up really- reviewing won’t always lead to the outcome the authors want- but it can always be “mindful, delicate, and constructive”. And certainly this is what the editors of JSCM (and many other journals) are trying to achieve when we discuss developmental reviewing. To learn more see also: https://www.journalofsupplychainmanagement.com/new-blog/2020/8/28/crafting-an-effective-review