Structure and Content of a Review

1. Contribution: Does the paper test, create, or extend engineering management knowledge in a meaningful way? Does the work inform or improve our understanding of the practice of engineering management? Are major contributions clearly defined?

2. Literature Review: Does the paper cite appropriate literature and provide proper credit to existing work on the topic? If not, can you offer important references that the author has missed? Does the paper contain an appropriate number of references (i.e., neither over-referencing nor under-referencing)?

3. Method: Are the sample, measures, methods, observations, procedures, and/or statistical analyses sound? Are statistical procedures used correctly and appropriately? Are the major assumptions of the techniques reasonably well met (i.e., no major violations)?

4. Integration: Does the study provide a good case for the need for the work? Are the methods chosen appropriate for the study?

Timeliness and Confidentiality

1. Reviewer Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to meet the deadlines proveded by the editorial team.

Late reviews cause a back-log in the process delaying the entire process. If you are unable to meet the review deadline, please contact the editorial team as soon as possible in order to allow time for finding another reviewer.

2. Double-blind Reviews: The author and reviewer do not identify themselves to each other in order to avoid potential bias. If a reviewer has any doubt about being able to be objective in the review, he/she should decline to review the paper.

3. Confidentiality: It is crucial that reviewers do not discuss the paper with anyone other than the editorial team.

Elements of a Thorough Review

1. Be Specific: Reviewers should explain problems/concerns with the paper and how they can be addressed. Comments and suggestions should be thorough. Number comments to ensure clear and coherent communication. Even when specific points need to be addressed, don’t forget to consider the overall contribution of the paper.

2. Balance Strengths and Weaknesses: While identifying significant limitations to the paper is necessary, it is also important to mention strengths. This helps authors to further improve the quality and contribution of their research. The point of reviews is to allow the authors to learn from the feedback. Reviews should provide detailed and useful suggestions on how to improve a paper. Always try to include supportive comments. A tip is to ‘sandwich’ the negative comments between a positive start and positive end. Many EMJ authors are new to EMJ and/or to engineering management. It is very important to provide these authors with detailed feedback so that they learn from the process even if the paper will not be accepted.

3. Be Constructive: It may be that the paper seems unsuitable for publication. Nonetheless, please remain constructive so that even if the paper cannot be improved, offer suggestions for future submissions. As a reviewer, you can be challenged with seriously-flawed papers. One of the most difficult tasks can be to maintain a positive tone in your reviews. It is imperative that all papers and authors are treated with respect and professional courtesy.

4. Authors Having English as a Second Language: Many submissions are written by authors with English as their second language. In these cases, it is essential to distinguish between the quality of the language and the quality of the concepts.

5. Recommendation: Do not include your recommendation (i.e. accept, revise and accept, major revisions, reject) in the comments to the author.