Overview of the JCR Editorial Review Process

The primary objective of the JCR editorial review process is to ensure that each submitted manuscript is evaluated not only rigorously, but also equitably and in accordance with criteria that are appropriate for its source discipline, perspective, or method. A paper should not be rejected, for example, because of a failure to understand a research paradigm or related terminology that is well accepted in the researcher's chosen discipline. However, authors do carry an additional burden in seeking to publish in JCR because they must communicate with a multidisciplinary audience. In general, the nature and content of published articles in JCR must be commensurate with the quality of research published in the core journals of these other disciplines.

The variance of philosophies and methodologies in consumer research has widened considerably over the last 25 years. The increased diversity of papers submitted for review at JCR poses a sizable challenge insofar as the evaluation criteria often differ depending on the perspective and nature of the research. To address this challenge, JCR strives to maintain an editorial review board and a large group of ad hoc reviewers whose expertise match the mission of JCR and the eclecticism of its authors and readers. Reviewers are expected not only to assess papers in a timely, meticulous, and fair manner, but also to assist authors as mutual colleagues in attaining the highest knowledge advances with their research and in maximizing the potential for publication in JCR, either through the current paper under review or in future papers. The reputation of JCR and the future of the consumer behavior field depend on reviewers who are respectful, helpful, and inspiring. Thus, a quality review requires a positive and scholarly attitude by reviewers and a rigorous and punctual evaluation of the manuscript. The next section expands on these aspects of a quality review.

Conducting and Communicating a JCR Review
It is a substantial service to the field of consumer research, and to the authors especially, when a scholar conducts an exemplary manuscript review for JCR. The professional responsibilities attendant to the task are large; they include a sincere effort to read the paper carefully; to withhold biases against the basic premise or purpose of the work; to apply evaluation criteria that are appropriate to the philosophy, paradigm, and goals inherent to the work; to express the evaluation to the authors in a clear, detailed, and kind manner that benefits the authors as much as possible; and to complete and return the review to the JCR office expeditiously (within 25 days).

Consider the following specific suggestions:

• Across all the review rounds, reviewers should strive to distinguish between what is perceived as correctable versus uncorrectable problems and between major versus minor concerns. However, in particular, the first round of reviews is the time for reviewers to highlight uncorrectable problems or other major concerns about a paper. It is generally inappropriate to raise them in later review rounds if they already existed in the first draft submitted. In most cases, new uncorrectable problems or new major concerns raised in later reviews should only apply to changes in a paper that have emerged through the authors' revision work.
• Reviewers must attempt to be impartial when evaluating a manuscript. Although it is difficult to be completely objective when assessing a paper that may not cohere with one's own beliefs or values, nevertheless, a reviewer must always strive for that goal. If a reviewer cannot separate the evaluation process from a desire to advocate a preferred theory or to reject the manuscript out-of-hand on philosophical grounds, then the reviewer should disqualify himself or herself from that review. The reviewer should avoid language that can be easily misconstrued or that appears condescending, including obscure or loaded vocabulary as well as humor, irony, and sarcasm.
• When the reviewer negatively evaluates different aspects of a paper, he or she should keep in mind that there are many ways to communicate this to the authors. For example, phrases such as "fatal flaws" or "serious mistakes" might instead be offered as "substantial concerns" or "major issues." JCR reviewers should be as polite and as diplomatic as they are demanding.
• A reviewer occasionally alleges that there are alternative explanations for the empirical findings in a given paper. When this criticism is raised it is vital for the reviewer to describe in detail how more than one plausible interpretation is consistent with most or all of the data, and not just in relation to a subset of the data.
• If the reviewer has ideas on how to improve the paper and the research, sharing those suggestions in the most precise manner possible will raise the likelihood that the authors will understand, appreciate, and utilize those ideas.

Preparing the Review

Key Characteristics of a Quality Review
A quality review has several pivotal features. It is rigorous and thorough, specific, anonymous and confidential, and prompt.

Rigor and Thoroughness. A quality review is a rigorous and thorough evaluation of the manuscript. The title and the abstract as well as all assumptions, assertions, analyses, and implications should be considered in detail for clarity, correctness, and conciseness. In some cases, a reviewer may be competent to evaluate either the conceptual or methodological aspects of a paper, but not both. In such instances, the reviewer should indicate that in the cover letter to the Editor that accompanies the Comments to the Authors.

A quality review should note the strengths as well as the weaknesses of the manuscript. Authors need to know what they have done well and not just what they have done poorly.

Specificity. A quality evaluation must be communicated in sufficient detail to support the reviewer's recommendation to the Editor. For instance, when alluding to previous research to uphold an assertion about some conceptual, methodological, or substantive weakness, it is imperative to provide a complete citation so the Editor and authors can locate it.

Anonymity and Confidentiality. JCR uses a double-blind anonymous review process. Authors and reviewers are not informed of each other's identities. If a reviewer knows or strongly suspects the identity of the authors, the reviewer should contact the JCR office immediately. Similarly, reviewers should never reveal their identities in their reviews. As a matter of confidentiality, it is also a violation of the authors' right to privacy to discuss a JCR manuscript with anyone else (though confidential and professional conduct in consultation with a colleague who is more proficient in a particular area is acceptable).

Promptness. A quality review assists the Editor in arriving at a decision in an expeditious manner. A review that arrives late may be superfluous, if an editorial decision has already been made. The reviews include the Summary Letter to the Editor, a final score, and the Comments to the Authors. These three components are discussed next.

Components of a JCR Review

A review has three components. These include:

1. your confidential short summary note to the editor
2. your recommendation for the manuscript's disposition
3. your comments to the authors (Word file).

Confidential Summary Letter to the Editor
A confidential Summary Letter intended only for the eyes of the Editor (and Associate Editor) is the forum where the reviewer can be completely honest regarding the manuscript. Rather than convey frustrations or strongly negative judgments directly to the authors, the reviewers should reserve these feelings and assessments for their Summary Letter to the Editor.

Confidential Recommendation for Disposition
The response serves as a diagnostic purpose for the Editor in the search for reviewer consensus. Please make sure your recommendation matches your review.

The overall recommendation has several options:

Accept Unconditionally. This rarely used category should be reserved for manuscripts that are virtually flawless in their content. In general, when a reviewer makes this recommendation, he or she will be regarded as having signed off on the manuscript.

Accept Conditionally, Subject to Minor Revisions. This recommendation should be made when the manuscript is judged to be quite strong and in need of only minor additions, deletions, or corrections.

Encourage Revision, According to Accompanying Comments. This recommendation should be used for manuscripts that have a high degree of potential for eventual publication, in addition to significant deficiencies that must be corrected. For instance, the research addresses a vital topic, but is not presented in a logical or lucid fashion, or questions may exist about some aspects of its method. This recommendation should be used when the reviewer believes that satisfactory resolution to his or her concerns is possible and that the achievement of successful resolution will result in an acceptable manuscript. Detailed Comments to the Authors are extremely important in support of this recommendation, so that the authors can conceivably answer all the concerns in a single revision. (A recommendation in this category should not be construed as a guarantee of eventual publication. In some cases, a seemingly promising manuscript will not be adequately revised to attain the quality and level of knowledge contribution required for publication in JCR.)

Reject in Current Form, But Allow Resubmission of a Substantially Different Version, According to Accompanying Comments. The essential difference between this recommendation (reject in current form) and the option above (encourage revision) is that the current version of the manuscript is not publishable in anything approximating its present form. Instead of simply rejecting a manuscript as completely unsalvageable, this recommendation includes thoughtful advice for producing a potentially publishable, but different manuscript. This is essentially a very risky revision (but the revision will be handled as a new submission, often [but not always] using the same review team).

Reject Unconditionally, Because the Likelihood of Successful Revision Is Remote. This recommendation is appropriate for papers that have major problems on multiple dimensions. It is viewed as having virtually no chance of ever making a contribution, even after revision. For example, the topic may be of minor importance to the domain of consumer behavior; the basic conceptual development may be extremely weak or incorrect; or the empirical work may have uncorrectable defects. This category will be the modal category for JCR submissions, based on the overall historical rejection rate of approximately 90 percent. Comments to the Authors should be especially polite in explaining the nature of the concerns, but the Comments to the Authors need not be as lengthy as in the previous categories. It is permissible and efficient to articulate only the most serious concerns, and to conserve reviewing energy for other manuscripts that stand to gain from more detailed reviewer input.

Comments to the Authors
The Comments to the Authors represent the most important component of the JCR review. They provide the rationale for the reviewer's evaluation of the manuscript, as well as suggestions for the improvement of the paper. The manuscript identification number should be typed at the top of the Comments to the Authors. Reviewers should not reveal their identities anywhere in the Comments to the Authors.

The Comments to the Authors should also not contain any semblance of a recommended rejection or acceptance of the manuscript. Such recommendations should be made only in the confidential Summary Letter to the Editor. It is the Editor's responsibility to make the final decision and also to decide on the best way to communicate that decision to the authors.

Comments to the Authors are generally most useful to the authors and the Editor when they begin with an overall or gestalt assessment of the reviewer's reaction to the manuscript, including prominent strengths and weaknesses. This big picture is valuable in providing a context for the more detailed comments that follow. The summary is especially important in identifying the reviewer's major concerns. After the overall assessment, the detailed comments are then provided that tactfully justify the evaluation and offer constructive, specific guidance for a revision or for future research efforts.

Sending the Review

Please follow the instructions given in the review request for submitting your review.

We thank all the reviewers for their dedicated service to JCR, and welcome any comments or suggestions about these requests and instructions specifically, or the JCR review process generally.