Edited by David W. Stewart and Daniel M. Ladik
Introduction to section III
A critical element in the publication process is the review procedure, in which individuals who have expertise in the subject matter addressed by a paper are asked to provide comments and suggestions for improvement. While some journals do ask reviewers for a recommendation about whether to publish, invite revision, or reject a paper, such a recommendation is not the primary task of the reviewer. Rather, the reviewer’s objective is to make the paper better by offering constructive comments about conceptual development, methodology, logic, conclusions, implications and exposition. Whether a paper is eventually published in a particular journal or not, the insights of reviewers are a powerful tool for improving papers. Even when a paper is rejected by one journal, reviews offer a means for improving the paper before submission to another journal. Authors of rejected papers would be well advised to make revisions in response to reviewers’ comments before sending a paper to another journal because there is a good chance at least one of the reviewers of the original submission will be selected by the new journal.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.
Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.
Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.