Writing good reviews

Abstract

Peer review is at the heart of publishing empirical research and theoretical thought pieces. According to the Taylor & Francis website, peer review is an independent assessment of research by experts in the field (Informa UK Limited, 2021a). The purpose is to evaluate a manuscript’s quality and suitability for publication. It also provides feedback to improve a manuscript before publishing. In JAEE we use a ‘double-blind review’, where the reviewers do not know the author, and the author does not know the reviewers. We believe that the double-blind review gives papers a fairer chance, helping to avoid unintended bias of reviewers who know the seniority, gender, or nationality of a paper’s author. (See, for instance, the article on gender bias in economics seminars by Dupas et al. (2021).) Our peer review process takes place as follows. Authors submit their manuscript to the journal, and the assistant editor assigns it to an editor-in-chief. The editor-in-chief then assigns the manuscript to one of our editors with relevant expertise. This person assigns reviewers (at least two per manuscript). Using a form, reviewers are asked whether the paper fits with the scope of the journal, and then to rate the manuscript based on innovativeness, scientific and practical relevance, research methodology, and clarify of presentation. What makes a good review? Taylor & Francis allow editors to rate reviewers based on timeliness and quality assessment. Timeliness is important, because one can see from the process above that all of these steps take some time, and we want to get out important research in a timely manner. The manuscript handling system (ScholarOne Manuscripts) will send alerts and reminders to reviewers when deadlines are looming. However, it is always possible to request an extension given extenuating circumstances. Quality assessment, however, is even more important. To write a good review, it is critical that reviewers carefully read the manuscript and give constructive feedback on each of these element using written text and providing examples and details. Rating the manuscripts helps, but even more important are the careful written comments that give editors the information needed to take decisions. The Taylor & Francis website (Informa UK Limited, 2021b) provides additional useful resources on how to review a manuscript. The articles in this issue have all been through multiple revisions and reviews. It is a painstaking process that requires commitment from the authors, editors, and reviewers. In Issue 27.2 we have articles on teaching secondary school agriculture at the psychomotor domain in Kenya (Njura et al.), entwining indigenous knowledge and science in extension for sustainable agriculture in Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu (Radcliffe et al.), participatory versus traditional agricultural advisory models for training farmers in conservation agriculture in Kenya (Bourne et al.), professionals’ attitudes and beliefs to inform design of agricultural innovation system approaches in Sierra Leone (Kamara et al.), effects of 4-H experience on agricultural career variables in South Korea (Jeong et al.), agricultural technical education, interpersonal trust, and pesticide use by vegetable farmers in China (Qingsong et al.), water conservation extension program planning and evaluation in the United States