How to Review a Paper

How to Review a Paper

Oler and Pasewark (2015)

Issues in Accounting Education

1. Research Question:

a. What is the purpose/role of a peer review in the accounting academic process?

b. What are the characteristics of a high quality review?

c. How are personal ethics and moral hazard involved in a review?

2. Motivation:

a. To inform and provide training to new PhD students/faculty on the review process.

b. To improve the quality of reviews in the future.

i. Thereby improving the overall quality of accounting research.

3. Research design: Commentary/Opinion.

4. Themes/Results:

a. Why reviews exist:

i. Adds credibility to research. Reduces erroneous research that convolutes or confuses the line of research. A good review should also increase acceptance of a good quality manuscript.

1. Type 1 error: Reject a good quality paper.

2. Type 2 error: Accept a poor quality paper.

b. Why you should review:

i. There is a shortage of reviewers, due to growing service, teaching, and research responsibilities of academics.

ii. Service to the profession.

iii. Reputational rents.

c. Consequences of a bad review

i. Agency problem in reviews: Because the review is double-blind, there is sometimes temptation for the author or reviewer to slack. However, this creates inefficiency and Type 1/2 errors.

1. Not anonymous to the editor.

ii. Reputational damage over time for poor quality or tardy reviews.

iii. Good reviews, on the other hand, improve the paper.

d. How to review:

i. Appendix has good summary of important points.

ii. Only accept if you’re serious about doing a good quality review (have skills, time, interest).

iii. Focus on abstract/tables first.

1. Individual and incremental contribution: “Could this paper change anyone’s beliefs?”

2. Is there adequate tension?

iv. Order comments from most to least important.