Gary, D H (2013) Note: Issues of importance, timing and method relating to peer review of journal manuscripts. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 18(3), pp. 282-290. ISSN 1366-4387
Abstract
The paper aims to highlight issues of importance, timing and method relating to peer review of academic journal manuscripts: in a broad context generally; and with respect to the Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction (JFMPC), more specifically. The paper aims to discuss these issues. – Synthesis of extant literature combined with the author's experientially-gained views as a researcher, author, reviewer and editor. – Opinions on the importance, timing and methods of peer review can vary widely, among individuals and publishing outlets. Notwithstanding this, based on the “approach” above, a cogent description of these peer review issues is defined and presented. – It is proffered that a robust peer review process yields benefits for researchers, authors, editors, journals, publishers and the end-users of published research. The note has potential implications for all of these stakeholders. – The discussion complements existing literature in this field, while its specific guidance for JFMPC stakeholders is new.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | journals; peers; publishing; quality; research; reviewing; writing |
| Index terms: | peer-review, journal, financial management |
| Subjects: | professional development, economic analysis, research dissemination and communication |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Research Practice, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here