Guideline for Reviewers
Thank you for agreeing to review the manuscript sent to you electronically which is being considered for publication in the Journal of Selling. At the request of other reviewers we have provided these notes as a guide to the review process which may be useful when added to your own experience.
The main objective of the Journal is to provide a focus for collaboration between practitioners and academics for the advancement of education and research in the areas of selling and major account management. Our audience is comprised of both practitioners in industry and academics researching in sales.
The Journal strives to enhance best practice in the field of selling, broadly defined. Articles that promote this will be given priority for publication. Empirical papers that help validate theory and industry reality are sought, but strategic conceptual articles are welcome that truly articulate paradigm shifts in the selling process. Additionally, practitioner articles which provide commentaries, best practices and case studies that address key sales issues are desired.
All academic papers published will contain an Executive Summary that identifies and discusses the managerial implications of the research findings.
The Role of Reviewers
We suggest that the prime responsibility of a reviewer is to assess the value of the contribution made by a paper to the aims of the Journal and to suggest ways in which this contribution may be enhanced. Even if the paper is not suitable for publication in the Journal, the authors should benefit from your expertise and suggestions.
A good review has three basic dimensions: thoroughness, guidance and substance. The thoroughness of a review reflects your knowledge of the subject matter. Guidance is the degree to which you provide specific written comments about how to improve the manuscript. Substance relates to the specificity of your comments and explanations regarding the difficulties in the manuscript. Reviewer comments to the author typically run between one and two pages.
An electronic review form is provided at www.cob.niu.edu/jsmam/review.asp (or click on the "Review Form (For Editor)" link to the left of this page) which will guide you in the manuscript review process. It is also your method to make your review evaluation to the Editor. The evaluation categories, which appear as scales, should help you to remember to consider all aspects of the manuscript as you prepare your analysis.
Comments to the Editor
In the designated space on the review form, please also make a set of comments to the Editor. You can be as candid as you please. Since the Editor will also read your comments to author, you do not need to repeat yourself. These comments to the editor will not be sent to the author(s), but they may be summarized in a letter to the author if pre publication changes are recommended. Please be extensive in your comments; they are particularly helpful in instructing acceptance/rejection decisions, where papers are marginal, or where the opinions of reviewers differ significantly.
Your comments to the Author(s)
Your comments will be of great value to the author and should identify what you feel is good and what you feel could be improved within the paper. Please try to be specific and constructive in the comments and recommendations you make, particularly where you feel that a manuscript is confusing. While many of our authors are experienced, some are just embarking on their academic career and benefit greatly from the professional advice that your review provides.
Your comments to the author should be typed in the box provided in the review form (it will expand as you type). Your identity to the author(s) is strictly guarded and the only identifying notation on the review is your reviewer code number.
Manuscripts ordinarily should be between 4,000 and 6,000 words (about 15-25 double spaced, typewritten pages with regular size type), plus appropriate references, tables and supporting materials. Articles of a shorter length are also acceptable.
Your recommendation to the Editor regarding the final disposition of the manuscript is critical. The decision of the Editor to publish a manuscript is strongly influenced by your recommendation. The collective decisions of the individual reviewers largely shape both the editorial content and quality of the Journal. So if you like, or don't like the manuscript, please say so.
You may choose to recommend major revision of a manuscript. This action is common; a significant number of the manuscripts published in the Journal have been through a major revision by the author. Recommend a major revision if you like the idea behind the manuscript and you feel the author can substantially rewrite the manuscript to make it suitable for publication in the Journal. In fairness, to both authors and reviewers, major revisions will be returned to the original set of reviewers for reconsideration. If the author meets your requirements for a major revision, there should be a high probability that you will recommend acceptance with only minor revisions.
Ethics and the Blind Review Process
The Journal uses a double-blind review process. Neither the author nor the reviewer should know the others identify. These identities, known only to the editorial staff, are never released, even after the article has been published. If you recognize the author from something in the manuscript, have reviewed this manuscript for another journal, or have read a substantially identical version in another journal, please return the manuscript to the Editor with a note to that effect. If you have seen the article in conference proceedings please notify the editor when you return your review. While we will not publish extant papers, we realize that conference presentations are one means by which authors' test their ideas before seeking full publication and the editor will insist on a substantial difference from the proceedings paper.
Upon receipt, the Editor reviews a manuscript to ensure that its topic is within the editorial scope of the Journal and that it meets accepted professional standards as outlined in the Notes to Contributors. The Editor then selects three reviewers on the basis of their expressed interests and expertise. If the Editor has misinterpreted your knowledge, as related to the manuscript topic, please send the manuscript back to be reassigned. Under no circumstances should you turn the manuscript over to another individual for review. Certainly feel free to consult with a colleague on an issue raised in the manuscript, or for help with a technical point or two, but be sure the review represents your thoughts.
Please feel free to contact the Editor, Robert M. Peterson, Ph.D. by email at firstname.lastname@example.org or by phone at 815-753-6224 regarding these guidelines or other aspects of the Journal.