Development of a Reviewer Mentoring Program in the Analysis of Verbal Behavior.
A journal-run mentoring track can teach reviewers to write faster, fairer reports and spread the workload.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Cengher et al. (2022) sent a survey to people who review for The Analysis of Verbal Behavior.
They asked what helps and what hurts the review process.
The answers showed a need for a formal mentoring program for new reviewers.
What they found
No new data on client outcomes were collected.
The survey itself was the product; it gave the editors a road map to build a mentoring track.
How this fits with other research
Cengher et al. (2024) wrote a how-to primer that turns the 2022 road map into clear steps.
Their four-pillar checklist gives new reviewers exact language to use, extending the mentoring idea into practice.
Iwata (1993) already said JABA reviews are free lessons; the 2022 paper simply formalizes that old insight into a program.
Cengher et al. (2024) also asked 93 editors what they want in a review; their survey backs up the same skills the mentoring plan targets.
Why it matters
If you review for any behavior-analytic journal, you will soon see a mentoring option.
Join it. You will finish reviews faster and give kinder, clearer feedback.
If you mentor others, use the four-pillar primer as your syllabus. Better reviews raise the quality of the whole field.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Sign up for the next AVB reviewer mentoring cycle when the call hits your inbox.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Abstract In July 2015, Wiley surveyed over 170,000 researchers in order to explore peer reviewing experience; attitudes towards recognition and reward for reviewers; and training requirements. The survey received 2,982 usable responses (a response rate of 1.7%). Respondents from all markets indicated similar levels of review activity. However, analysis of reviewer and corresponding author data suggests that US researchers in fact bear a disproportionate burden of review, while Chinese authors publish twice as much as they review. Results show that while reviewers choose to review in order to give back to the community, there is more perceived benefit in interacting with the community of a top‐ranking journal than a low‐ranking one. The majority of peer review training received by respondents has come either in the form of journal guidelines or informally as advice from supervisors or colleagues. Seventy‐seven per cent show an interest in receiving further reviewer training. Reviewers strongly believe that reviewing is inadequately acknowledged at present and should carry more weight in their institutions' evaluation process. Respondents value recognition initiatives related to receiving feedback from the journal over monetary rewards and payment in kind. Questions raised include how to evenly expand the reviewer pool, provide training throughout the researcher career arc, and deliver consistent evaluation and recognition for reviewers.
The Analysis of verbal behavior, 2022 · doi:10.1002/leap.1002