Developing doctoral students' / researchers’ understanding of the journal peer-review process

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Developing doctoral students' / researchers’ understanding of the journal peer-review process © 2021 Elsevier Published version Hanafizadeh, Payam; Shaikh, Aijaz Hanafizadeh, P., & Shaikh, A. (2021). Developing doctoral students' / researchers’ understanding of the journal peer-review process. International Journal of Management Education, 19(2), Article 100500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100500 2021 Developing doctoral students’ / researchers’ understanding of the journal peer-review process Payam Hanafizadeh [email protected] Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management and Accountancy, Allameh Tabataba’i University, West End Hemmat Highway, Dehkadeh-ye-Olympic, Tehran 1489684511, Iran. ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5233-987X Aijaz A. Shaikh* [email protected] Jyväskylä University School of Business and Economics, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014, University of Jyväskylä, Finland ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5389-4384 *Corresponding author Developing doctoral students’ / researchers’ understanding of the journal peer-review process Abstract A growing body of knowledge has confirmed that the journal peer-review process is an integral part of the scientific publication process and provides demonstrable benefits to journal editors and authors. This study aims to develop doctoral students’ understanding of the journal peer-review process and highlight the most common errors and pitfalls reviewers identify in novice authors’ manuscripts, which could lead to rejection. A qualitative content analysis research method was used to analyse the primary data as experience collected from senior researchers, editors and associate editors. Among the major contributions of this study is an interactive diagram that provides an overview of the journal peer-review process and identifies the common pitfalls in manuscripts, as well as a comprehensive manuscript submission checklist. Keywords: Content analysis method; peer-review process; potential pitfalls; scientific publication; doctoral education. 1. Introduction Doctorate education and research are considered important pillars of higher education (Anderson & Gold, 2019) and expand the body of knowledge available in academia (Greener, 2021). The motivation for writing this article on the journal peer-review process was twofold. First, the journal peer-review process is an essential component of the scientific publication process, a key indicator of scholarly success (Wilkins, Hazzam, & Lean, 2021), and a growing body of knowledge (e.g., Powell & Lindo, 2019) has confirmed that the peerreview process is an integral part of the scientific publication process. Second, during our interactions with doctoral students and young scholars at various academic events, such as defence proposal/thesis sessions, conferences, workshops and other networking events, we have learned that strong misperceptions of and confusion about the journal peer-review system prevail among doctoral students and other young scholars, suggesting that the process is a mystery. Because it is hard to understand reviewers’ mindsets, it is difficult to predict how to survive the process and a ‘desk rejection’ or ‘rejection’ decision. To empirically and effectively address these concerns and offer actionable insights and recommendations, we embarked on this journey to evaluate and elucidate the peer-review system typically used by academic journals in detail. Besides, we share our own experiences of surviving and thriving after peer-review wrath and collect first-hand opinions and perspectives from senior scholars on the common pitfalls these experts encounter while reviewing manuscripts for various established journals. If doctoral students, including novice academics, know, understand and address these fundamental issues or pitfalls, they will increase their chances of getting their work published. The peer-review process is a critical domain in the scientific article submission, scrutinisation and publication system. Similarly, the peer-review process is the first step in bringing authors' hard work to publication, and it provides several benefits to both journals and authors. For journals, peer reviewers serve as gatekeepers of quality and significant research, providing invaluable help to editors and supporting decision-making on scientific matters (Kirman, Simon, & Hays, 2019; Marsh, Jayasinghe, & Bond, 2008; Kumashiro et al., 2005). The peer- review process also works as a filtering system, ensuring that research is trustworthy and makes a meaningful contribution to its field. Reviewers can be considered judges for the journals (Alfonso, 2010). For authors, the peer-review process is an opportunity to obtain non-punitive feedback, which can be in use to improve the article's scientific content and determine the accuracy and the scientific merit of the manuscript being reviewed (Kirman et al., 2019). Authors should consider the reviewer as a mentor or a peer who is acting as a representative of other scholars in the field. Authors need to consider the peer-review process as an effort to convince their peers of the importance of their findings. If authors can convince their peers in this process that their research findings are innovative, new and interesting, their manuscript is likely to be accepted at the end of the review process. Despite the peer-review process's importance, there is surprisingly little empirically rigorous research in this area (Bornmann & Daniel, 2010; Marsh et al., 2008). Anecdotal but contemporary evidence suggests much of the prior research (cf. Castello, Pardo, SalaBubar´e, & Sune-Soler, 2017; Wilkins et al., 2021; Madden, Madden, Rousseau, & Woehr, 2016) has considered the procedures relates to doctoral studies' completion times, how to encourage and support doctoral students to write for publication, research methods training for doctoral students, doctoral attrition, and how best to supervise these doctoral students. Moreover, most publications on the journal peer-review process are either editorials (Roggeveen & Sethuraman, 2018, 2019; Gerwing & Rash, 2020) or short communications (Gerwing & Rash, 2020; Linton, 2016). Journal editors write and publish these editorials and communications to share their viewpoints on the peer-review process and how it is conducted at their specific journals. However, only a few theoretical or empirical studies published in business and management journals have considered the complete peer-review process (Mandviwalla, Patnayakuni, & Schuff, 2008). Similarly, in most universities and business schools, formal training on understanding scholarly publishing and the peer review process is missing. Fewer efforts are devoted to include explicit content on how to understand and manage the journal peer-review process. This article is a major step in identifying this gap and motivating the research supervisors in developing the content to develop this understanding among the research faculty members, including doctoral students. The purpose of this article is multi-faceted. First, we have provided an interactive diagram that breaks the peer-review process down into a series of steps to improve doctoral students' understanding of the procedure. Second, we have identified and listed the potential pitfalls the reviewers highlighted. Third, we have developed an appropriate multi-perspective checklist of issues to consider before submission. The study addresses three questions on the review process (‘what is’), identifying common pitfalls (‘what is’) and avoiding the pitfalls (‘how to’). These questions were specified based on the experiences the authors of the present study gathered during their years of working as editors and editorial board members of various journals. Further exploration to collect secondary data and read the opinions of other academicians and authors of 12 published editorials and short communications validated our questions. Hence, we believe that the answers to the current study’s research questions will help young researchers write academic papers and strengthen the quality of future publications. To achieve these objectives, we have addressed the following research questions: RQ1: Considering peer/review as a process, what is the typical logical workflow of this process, and what is the difference between a micro-and a macro-peerreview process? RQ2: What are the most common pitfalls referees identify when reviewing a manuscript submitted for possible publication? RQ3: How should academicians —including research supervisors and research students—effectively address these pitfalls in manuscripts to minimise the chances of receiving a desk rejection or rejection decision? This article makes the following important contributions. It will help management schools in general and authors, doctoral students, contributors, and anyone who has or expects to review or supervise such papers, in particular, understand the significance of the peer-review process and recognise the most common pitfalls or shortcomings to consider before submission. Awareness of these pitfalls, which have been identified by field experts and summarised in checklist form, will help authors (especially doctoral students) advance through the peerreview process, avoid desk rejections and minimise their chances of rejection. As we collected opinions from several experts from different business and management education fields, the findings presented in this article will be useful for various authors from different scientific fields of business and management who conduct qualitative, quantitative, or mixedmethod studies. Moreover, the results of this research can be included in syllabus content and course plans, particularly seminars or workshops on research methods. The findings presented in this article will be of particular value to doctoral student supervisors in supporting their students’ publishing activities as part of their professional development. The terms ‘peer-review process’ and ‘peer-review system’ have been used interchangeably, as have ‘reviewers’, ‘experts’ and ‘referees’. The peer-review process is undertaken for various purposes and scopes, such as determining which articles to publish, which projects to finance and which awards to approve. Next, we present the research methodology, describing the data sources, sampling techniques and data analysis methods used. In Section 3, we discuss the journal peer-review process, including the microand macro-review processes: The related findings are presented under eight sub-headings. Finally, we summarise our major findings in the Discussion and Conclusion section (Section 4). 2. Methodology Qualitative content analysis was used because it is an appropriate method to identify and trace concepts across textual matter. As there is not enough structured former knowledge and the limited available knowledge is fragmented, the inductive approach was adopted (Schreier, 2012). We moved from the specific to the general during our explorations of the data so that we could observe, tag by code, categorise and then combine particular instances into a larger whole or general statement to answer the research questions. To answer our what and how research questions, the unit of analysis was set as a sentence or portion of a paragraph (Robson, 1993; Schreier, 2012). We analysed only the manifest content and did not have access to the latent content (i.e., silence, sighs, laughter, posture, etc.), because the data-gathering process was conducted using open-ended questionnaires (Robson, 1993; Morse, 1994). We designed our inductive analysis processes in two main phases: data collection and preparation, followed by analysis and narration. The data were analysed using ATLAS.ti 8 software. 2.1 Data collection and preparation Purposive sampling was used to recruit the key informants and experts, regardless of gender. The sample population comprised current and former senior editorial board members of leading business, management and education journals, including editors-in-chief, associate editors, senior researchers and editorial board members. Participants were selected based on the following criteria and qualifications: i) having published papers in highly ranked journals; ii) having more than 15 years of research experience; iii) having been actively involved in reviewing for and served on the editorial review boards of various journals; and iv) having agreed to participate in the review process at least eight times per year. All potential participants were contacted via email or through professional and academic social networking platforms such as LinkedIn and ResearchGate. Out of 33 candidates in the target sample pool, we communicated with 11 key experts before reaching a saturation level in our analysis. We witnessed signs of saturation after analysing the eighth case and were satisfied on the eleventh case. We considered that we had reached saturation when no new code emerged following the addition of a new questionnaire, no codes were left that did not belong to a category and there were no data items that were not linked to each other (Patton, 1990; Cavanagh, 1997). The data collection instrument was a set of open-ended questionnaires sent to the candidates; the completed questionnaires were returned with the candidates’ narrative descriptive answers written under each question. The questionnaire was designed to allow the candidate to express his/her opinion in response to the question: What weaknesses or shortcomings do you usually find in each of the manuscript sections, including the introduction, theory, quantitative method, hypothesis, methodology, findings or results, discussion, contributions, limitations, future research directions and conclusion? What improvements do you suggest to contributing authors? The candidates were asked to share any two major weaknesses or shortcomings they found and the associated improvements they recommended for each section of an article when writing their reviews for a journal. The completed questionnaires were collected as text files (or written emails) from the candidates from October 2019 to July 2020. In addition to the primary data, we collected secondary data, including 12 published editorials and short communications in leading journals (see Table 1). The secondary data reflects the opinions of influential authors on the process and quality of peer-review publications. The secondary sources included valuable editorials and short communications published by the editors-in-chief of mainstream journals, who shared their opinions on drafting a good article for the peer-review process. We selected those publications that were aligned with our research questions in terms of the addressed concerns. We considered both the primary and secondary data as texts to explore. Once our data-gathering process was complete, we read the data several times (Burnard, 1991; Schreier, 2012) with our questions in mind (Dey, 1993): who is narrating, where is it happening, what is it and why. The outcome was to understand what was going on (Morse & Field, 1995) and obtain a sense of the whole (Tesch, 1990; Burnard, 1991). We realised that the three current research questions have long been matters of concern for other academicians with whom we had a chance to communicate or whose publications we read. 2.2 Analysis and narratives After making sense of the data, we conducted our analysis using an inductive coding approach, including open coding, creating categories (axial coding) and abstraction (Elo & Kyngas, 2017; Kyngas & Vanhanen, 1999). The open coding was conducted by reading the texts and writing memos and side notes. During open coding, headings emerged in the form of codes and notes describing the codes’ meanings. The texts were read through again and headings were explored and finalised to describe all aspects of the content (Burnard 1991, 1996; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Lists of the codes are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Furthermore, the relationships between the codes were investigated and the categories were determined based thereon. For example, when the experts characterised ‘clarification of findings in extending existing knowledge’ as ‘making a relation between theory and practice’ and ‘generalising the findings to other disciplines’, the obtained codes indicated that the theme belonged in the ‘suggestions about discussion/implications’ category. The outcome of this phase was to understand the typical logical workflow of the peer-review process and the difference between the microand macro-peer-review processes. Comparing the identified codes to the patterns specified in editorials enabled us to create a model of the peer-review process. Once the related codes for each category were obtained, the concept models and the code networks were developed to visually depict the relationships amongst the concepts. The results are reported in the Findings section of this article. To prepare the descriptive and narrative report of the findings, we consulted our memos and side notes and referred to the codes; this enabled us to articulate the pitfalls and present solutions to overcome them. We elaborated our findings via quotations from the texts as evidence to support our claims. 3. Findings This section reports our findings from the qualitative analysis we used to explore the collected texts. After processing the measures explained in the Methodology section, we reached a saturation point; the codes and categories we generated during this process are discussed in the following sections. We explored two major categories, ‘the journal peerreview process’ and ‘common pitfalls and solutions’. The first of these two was divided into three subcategories: ‘submitting a paper for publication’, ‘the peer-review system’ and ‘the microand macro-peer-review’. The second comprised eight subcategories that represent the eight sections of a research paper, narrating common pitfalls and suggestions accordingly. The categories mentioned reflect the answers to the research questions that we identified and explored. The process, the pitfalls and then the suggestions supported by the narrative quotes from the texts are reported. The summaries of the findings and codes are presented in Tables 4 and 5. In search of responses to the second and third questions, i.e., what are the most common pitfalls referees identify when reviewing a manuscript submitted for possible publication, and how should academia (including research supervisors and research students) effectively address these pitfalls in the manuscript to minimise the chances of receiving a desk rejection or rejection decision, the pitfalls and suggestions for improvement in each of these eight sections were identified through the latent meanings behind the accumulated texts using inductive coding; the codes and themes used are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Figure 2 presents the model of experts’ suggestions for improving an article. The concepts are displayed in orange and the codes related to each concept are displayed in yellow. For example, the ‘suggestions about methodology’ concept is associated with related codes, including ‘rational research design’, ‘using appropriate methods and procedures for data collection and measurement’, ‘answering questions about how/what and why’ and ‘research design’. All connections between the codes are illustrated in Figure 2, such as the relationship between ‘research design’ and ‘answering questions about how/what and why’. Similarly, Figure 3 presents the major weaknesses in the manuscripts, as extracted from the experts’ views. [Insert Figure 2 about here] [Insert Figure 3 about here] 3.1. The journal peer-review process 3.1.1 Submitting a paper for publication Doctoral students’ future career success largely depends on scholarly research (Mello, Fleisher, & Woehr, 2015). Among the most important goals for publishing an article, we can make mention to 1. scientific conversation with peers, 2. contribution in the literature on the subject and 3. the possibility of using, criticising and evaluating the results of a research. The peer-review process (sometimes called the scientific peer-review system or procedures of science) is a core aspect of scholarly publishing. The peer-review process is used by scientific work publication platforms, such as academic journals and funding agencies, to evaluate a manuscript's or proposal's efficacy and novelty. The peer-review process thus plays a significant role in the advancement and acceptance of scientific knowledge. The peer review is broadly defined as an assessment by an independent expert of scientific material submitted for possible publication (Hernon and Schwartz, 2006). According to Wager, Godlee and Jefferson (2002), the journal peer-review process is a formal system whereby a piece of academic work (e.g. a manuscript) is carefully evaluated by people who are not involved in creating the research but are considered experts on the subject. 3.1.2 Peer-review system Prior research (cf. Blank, 1991) has described different peer-review models. These models include the single or simple-blind review model (where a journal editor allows the reviewers to know the authors), the double-blind review model (where a journal editor allows neither the reviewers nor the authors to identify each other) and the open-review model (where a journal editor allows both the reviewers and the authors to identify each other). These days, both journal editors and funding agencies evaluating applications typically use the doubleblind review model. The decisions journal editors arrive at vary in severity and extent and divided into five major types. The first type of decision is called 'accepted without revision'. This exceedingly rare decision means that the submitted manuscript has been reviewed and accepted for publication without any changes. The second type is called 'accepted with minor revisions'. In this decision, the reviewers and journal editors recommend some changes to the manuscript before it is formally accepted for publication. The third type of decision, 'accepted with major revision', is the most common decision. The fourth type of decision is 'reject and resubmit', in which the journal editor allows or encourages the author(s) to resubmit the work after addressing reviewer comments, despite receiving a recommendation for rejection from the reviewer. Although this type of decision is very rare, it still stands true. The fifth type of decision is rejection. The journal editor decides not to accept the manuscript for publication based on his or her analysis of the manuscript and the reviewers' feedback. At the most fundamental level, the peer-review process aims to maintain scientific rigour by accepting good articles, suggesting improvements to articles with methodological and interpretive ambiguity, and rejecting problematic articles (Gerwing & Rash, 2020). Despite these benefits, editors and editorial board members widely agree that referee evaluation reports are advisory rather than binding (La Follette, 1983). Generally, editors or associate editors initially screen articles submitted for possible publication. Those that are found to be compatible with the journal’s editorial content and are appropriate, credible and of sufficient scientific merit progress to the review process. However, after considering the volume of submissions in some journals, the geographically distributed or designated associated editors (such as for North America, Asia, Europe, or Africa) screen the submissions and recommend further actions. The peer-review process depends on two or more external reviewers or referee reports prepared by individuals with deep and relevant expertise in the field explored in the article or the methodology used, who follow a pre-defined guidance document issued by the journal (Wilby, El Hajj, El-Bashir, & Mraiche, 2018). These external reviewers recommend the journal editor whether the manuscript should be published, revised before publication or rejected. Nonetheless, according to Koltay (2010), the classification of the external reviewers' actions includes summarising judgment regarding suitability for publication, outlining the manuscript, exercising criticism, and drawing conclusions and providing recommendations for improvements. The final decision to accept a resubmission (with minor or major changes) or reject rests with the editor. The review process varies from journal to journal. Editors traditionally select the reviewers, although, at times, they may invite the authors to suggest potential reviewers. Nonetheless, editors are cautious (Marsh et al., 2008) about relying on author-nominated reviewers' recommendations due to the element of favouritism, which could compromise the quality of the article and the reviewers' feedback. The peer-review process usually takes approximately three to five months, depending on the reviewers’ availability in the field and their timely response. If another round of revision is required, completing the peer-review process and reaching a final decision on the manuscript’s fate can take over one year. The timeline for top-notch journals, for example, in the business and management field, differ and takes around two years from submission to final decision; this period also usually involves two or even three rounds of revisions. A typical publication and review process consists of several interrelated steps, which are illustrated in Figure 1. For example, the diagram illustrates that the core of the publication process lies in the author’s patience, proactive approach, attitude and logical flow of activities. These activities can be divided into two stages: The first stage explains the pre-publication process, while the second stage explains the peer-review system. The pre-publication process includes several important steps, such as carefully reading the No research is without limitations or barriers, so these issues should be explicitly explained in a manuscript’s Conclusions section. While reviewing the articles, some experts found that authors were not conscious of their studies’ limitations. One of our experts mentioned that: [authors must] ensure that [they] are aware of the limitations of [their] study and that these limitations can open the door for future research agenda without minimising the [value added by their] own paper. In line with the limitations, the authors should present a future research agenda to offset those limitations and provide a glimpse of the future of their field of research. Reviewers do not look favourably on the authors' failure to mention the assumptions of their research outcomes. 3.2.7 Reference list The list of references should be considered carefully. Having a long list of references is not appropriate for an article. The following points should be considered. 1) The presence of predatory journals in the list of references is considered highly inappropriate by reviewers and editors. 2) Although there are a few exceptions, most established journal editors do not like to see conference proceedings or internet resources in the list of references unless they are deemed necessary due to the study's objectives and scope. Therefore, authors should consider primarily including journal articles from prestigious journals which have gone through a rigorous peer-review process. Other issues include failure to follow referencing instructions fully, failure to arrange the references alphabetically, lack of relevant references in the text or reference list, references in the reference list which are not available in text form or otherwise, failure to cite literature published in the last five years or failure to use highly ranked sources, such as A* and A (ABDC) or 4*, 4, 3, 2 (ABS/AJG) or Q1, Q2 (Scimago), particularly when an author has borrowed their theory(ies) from such a source. Failure to observe a journal's guidelines, especially concerning citation and referencing, is another pitfall. Observing the journal's standards and structure usually makes a positive impression on the editor or associate editor. It implies that the article has been developed for that journal from the beginning. One of our experts offered the following suggestion: Read the ‘instruction for authors’ to be guided on what to do with the references. Since there is no assurance that your paper will be accepted by the journal, I would recommend the use of citation software such as Mendeley, EndNote, etc. It is always easier to change the styles of both the in-text [references] and reference list to suit the specific journal. 3.2.8 Other improvements In short communication articles, some editors have expressed particular concern about the study's title and suggested a few insights. For example, in their opinion, the study's title is no less important than any section of the study and should be short, crisp, jargon-free, eyecatching and thought-provoking. Along the same lines, experts also observed that abstracts were sometimes inappropriately drafted: They explained that the abstract is one of the most important components of the manuscript and contains essential information, but they found that authors often failed to utilise the allowed word count from the target journal when drafting their abstracts. At a minimum, an abstract should anchor the reader by including the purpose, research gaps, research methodology, major findings and contributions. Before submitting an article for publication, every author should read the target journal's author guidelines diligently and follow them carefully. Every journal maintains its flavour and scope. One-size-fits-all does not apply in the scientific publication process. Any manuscript that does not fit within the target journal's scope should be redirected to other more appropriate and relevant journals. To improve the manuscript's comprehensibility, having the article edited by a professional language editor and then proofread by a native speaker of English familiar with the topic under study to ensure that the ideas are not lost in editing is highly advisable. In a few of the experts' opinions, it was noticed that some doctoral students approach the editorial office to seek an opinion on the appropriateness of the research idea or manuscript with the journal scope and objectives. Discouraging this practice, Phillips (2019) instead suggested that the submissions should be made. If the article does not suit the journal's scope, the same shall come in the form of feedback and a decision from the editorial office. 4. Discussion and conclusion The journal peer-review process provides several benefits to journal editors and authors and is increasingly synonymous with being scientifically sound and approved. Originating in the mid-1600s, the peer-review process has undergone many changes and improvements over the centuries. Journal editors have realised how indispensable the process is to advancing and enhancing existing knowledge and screening articles for quality, credibility and meaningful contributions. After listening to young scholars' viewpoints and concerns, we realised that a rejection decision is deeply disappointing to many authors, especially when striving to produce and submit their best work for publication. To offer some relief to young scholars, the purpose of this article is to streamline young scholars' understanding of the peer-review process with the help of an interactive diagram, a list of the potential pitfalls identified by reviewers and a checklist to review before submission. The data were collected from multiple primary and secondary sources. The data analysis suggests that authors should understand what each section of a manuscript is supposed to accomplish. This study's major results are summarised in Tables 4 and 5 in the form of a checklist, which could be useful for young scholars when drafting manuscripts for publication. [Insert Table 4 about here] [Insert Table 5 about here] The experts who participated in this research generally agreed that writing and publishing a good academic or scientific article is daunting. In addition, the expert's viewpoint suggests that formal training on research & publication should remain a major component of doctoral education, the fact which is endorsed by prior research (cf. Madden et al., 2016). Most experts considered the abstract and the introduction to be the most important sections in a manuscript. They establish the groundwork and explain why a study is important and worthy of publication. As Roggeveen and Sethuraman (2018, p. 2) explained, the questions contributing authors should address in the introduction section include the following: Why does this research matter? Is the research question interesting and important? Does the research helps shed light on an unresolved issue? Will the findings add theoretically or conceptually to extant literature? Failure to answer these questions makes the manuscript less likely to be cited by other authors and suggests that the manuscript is enigmatic and egocentric. Such manuscripts often leave reviewers wondering why the study is important. Moreover, when targeting a well-respected established journal, authors must meet even more stringent criteria. For example, research scholars should use the most rigorous and appropriate methods to collect and analyse their data and report their findings, and an article must fall within the journal’s scope. Any overlapping with existing literature should be kept to a minimum. Articles should be subjected to a thorough language edit, and must fully comply with author guidelines. Here, the role played by teachers and supervisors is paramount. A research culture could be developed through a systematic approach involving short workshops, seminars, conferences (including meet-the-editor sessions), training and access to the most up-to-date scholarly database or resources. Such a research culture should enable research faculty members and research students to understand the scientific research and publication process. These efforts could be supplemented by faculty including the scholarly publishing and/or journal peerreview process in the taught components of doctoral programs in the business and management field. In summary, research faculty and young scholars should continue improving their skills and consider the peer-review process as a help rather than a hindrance. After all, writing and publishing require proper planning, patience, devotion, rigor and the purpose of scientific research to inform and impress. References Alfonso, F. (2010). The "peer-review" process in biomedical journals: characteristics of "elite" reviewers. Neurologia, 25, 521–529. Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematisation. Academy of Management Review, 36, 247–271. Anderson, V., & Gold, J. (2019). The value of the research doctorate: A conceptual examination. The International Journal of Management Education, 17 (3), 1–14. Blank, R. M. (1991). The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: Experimental evidence from the American Economic Review. The American Economic Review, 81 (5), 1041–1067. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2010). The manuscript reviewing process: Empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review. Library & Information Science Research, 32, 5–12. Burnard, P. (1991). A method of analysing interview transcripts in qualitative research. Nurse Education Today, 11(6), 461–466. Castello, M., Pardo, M., Sala-Bubar´e, A., & Sune-Soler, N. (2017). Why do students consider to drop out of doctoral degrees? Institutional and personal factors. Higher Education, 74(6), 1053–1068. Cavanagh, S. (1997). Content analysis: concepts, methods and applications. Nurse Researcher, 4(3), 5–16. Dye, J. F., Schatz, I. M., Rosenberg, B. A., & Coleman, S. T. (2000). Constant comparison method: A kaleidoscope of data. The Qualitative Report, 4(1/2), 1–9. Gerwing, T. G., & Rash, J. A. (2020). Constructive and collegial peer-review as a necessary precursor to data-driven environmental policy. Marine Policy, 111, 1–3. Greener, S. L. (2021). Non-supervisory support for doctoral students in business and management: A critical friend. The International Journal of Management Education, 19 (2), 1–8. Hanafizadeh, P. Keating, B. W., & Khedmatgozar, H. (2014). A Systematic Review of Internet Banking Adoption, Telematics and Informatics, 31 (3), 492–510. Hernon, P., & Schwartz, C. (2006). Peer review revisited. Library and Information Science Research, 1 (28), 1–3. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. Kirman, C. R., Simon, T. W., & Hays, S. M. (2019). Science peer review for the 21st century: Assessing scientific consensus for decision-making while managing conflict of interests, reviewer and process bias. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 103, 73–85. Koltay, T. (2010). Further comments on peer review. Library & Information Science Research, 32, 175–176. Kumashiro, K., Pinar, W., Graue, E., Grant, C., Benham, M., Heck, R., ... & Luke, C. (2005). Thinking collaboratively about the peer-review process for journal-article publication. Harvard Educational Review, 75(3), 257–285. Kyngas, H., & Vanhanen, L. (1999). Content analysis. Hoitotiede, 11, 3–12. La Follette, M. C. (1983). On fairness and peer review. Science, Technology & Human Values, 8, 3–5. Linton, J. D. (2016). Improving the Peer review process: Capturing more information and enabling high-risk/high-return research. Research Policy, 45, 1936–1938. Madden, T. M., Madden, L. T., Rousseau, M. B., & Woehr, D. J. (2016). Developing depth and breadth of research methods training for doctoral students with CARMA webcasts. The International Journal of Management Education, 14 (3), 368–378. Mandviwalla, M., Patnayakuni, R., & Schuff, D. (2008). Improving the peer review process with information technology. Decision Support Systems, 46, 29–40. Marsh, H. W., Jayasinghe, U. W., & Bond, N. W. (2008). Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. American Psychologist, 63, 160–168. Mello, A. L., Fleisher, M. S., & Woehr, D. J. (2015). Varieties of research experience: Doctoral student perceptions of preparedness for future success. The International Journal of Management Education, 13 (2), 128–140. Morse, J. M. (Ed.). (1994). Critical issues in qualitative research methods. Newbury, CA: Sage. Morse, J. M., & Field, P. A. (1995). Nursing research: The application of qualitative approaches. Nelson Thornes. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Sage publications. Newbury Park, CA. Phillips, F. (2019). How to publish your research in Technological Forecasting & Social Change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 488–490. Powell, J. R., & Lindo, Z. (2019). A review of peer-review for Pedobiologia - Journal of Soil Ecology. Pedobiologia, 77, 1–4. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitionerresearchers. Wiley-Blackwell. Roggeveen, A. L., & Sethuraman, R. (2018). Understanding the JR heritage, publishing in JR, and the evolving retail field. Journal of Retailing, 94, 1. Roggeveen, A. L., & Sethuraman, R. (2019). From Manuscript Submission to Article Publication: Shedding Light on the Review Process in Journal of Retailing. Journal of Retailing, 95, 1. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Tesch, R. (2013). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software. Routledge. USC Libraries (2017). Organising your social sciences research paper: 4. The introduction. University of Southern California Research Guides (available at http://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/introduction). Wager, E., Godlee, F., & Jefferson, T. (2002). How to survive peer review. BMJ Book. Wilby, K. J., El Hajj, M. S., El-Bashir, M., & Mraiche, F. (2018). Overcoming pitfalls: Results from a mandatory peer review process for written examinations. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 10, 423–426. Wilkins, S., Hazzam, J., & Lean, J. (2021). Doctoral publishing as professional development for an academic career in higher education. The International Journal of Management Education, 19 (1), 1–13. Figure 1: The publication and review proess Figure 2: Key suggestions from the experts Figure 3: Major weaknesses in the manuscripts as identified by the experts List of Tables Table 1: Editorials and short communications included in this article S# Citation Title of the study Publisher Nature 1. Gerwing & Rash (2020) Constructive and Collegial Peer-Review as a Necessary Precursor to Data-Driven Environmental Policy Marine Policy Short Communication 2. Roggeveen & Sethuraman (2019) From Manuscript Submission to Article Publication: Shedding Light on the Review Process in Journal of Retailing Journal of Retailing Editorial 3. Powell & Lindo (2019) A Review of Peer-Review for Pedobiologia – Journal of Soil Ecology Pedobiologia Editorial 4. Jull & Moore (2019) The Peer Review Process: Giving and Receiving Advice Musculoskeletal Science and Practice Editorial 5. Justman (2019) A Necessary Complement to Transparent Peer Review: Editorial Transparency Cell Systems Editorial 6. Roggeveen & Sethuraman (2018) Understanding the JR Heritage, Publishing in JR, and the Evolving Retail Field Journal of Retailing Editorial 7. Linton (2016) Improving the Peer Review Process: Capturing More Information and Enabling High-Risk/High-Return Research Research Policy Short Communication 8. Alfonso-Kaspar (2013) The Integrity of Editing, Peer Reviewing and Authoring. The Journal of Academic Librarianship Editorial 9. Mungra & Webber (2010) Peer Review Process in Medical Research Publications: Language and Content Comments English for Specific Purposes Short Communication 10. Hernon & Schwartz (2006) Peer review revisited Library & Information Science Research Editorial 11. Kohl (2007) Peer review and the academic “Twelfth Man” The Journal of Academic Librarianship Editorial 12 Lindgreen and Di Benedetto (2020) How reviewers really judge manuscripts? Industrial Marketing Management Editorial