The reviewers' role in the publication process

Following our previous editorials on the publication process, in this edition, we aim to present some guidelines for the reviewers on how to write good reviews. Throughout the literature, we can notice there are several suggestions for authors on how to respond to the recommendations from ad hoc reviewers. However, only a few references are given for reviewers on how to write a proper review. In fact, there is no training for a student or a scholar to become a reviewer, or as quoted by Lepak (2009) “there is no formal training for referees, who usually pick up their review skills through learning by doing”(Tsang and Frey, 2007, p. 129). In general, graduate programs seek to encourage their students to read well-known articles critically to promote this type of learning. Nevertheless, undoubtedly, the learning process takes place when this student submits his/her articles to good journals and receives some feedback, possibly in the form of a rejected paper. The invited reviewer is an expert on the theme of the article. The editor’s invitation itself represents the recognition of the reviewer’s work. Therefore, he/she is considered able to evaluate whether the article is to be published. The editor and associate editors also have the important role of choosing reviewers who fit the theme and the research methods used. Writing a good review is not an easy task: it requires time and competence. By accepting to be a reviewer, scholars take great responsibility in presenting the editor the adherence and relevance of the article to the respective journal. The main point here is to help the publisher decide whether to publish the article, as well as help the author(s) improve the quality of the article