Editors' perspectives on the selection of reviewers and the quality of reviews
Editors care most about your expertise, respectful tone, and design critique—grammar edits barely register.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Cengher et al. (2024) asked 93 editors of behavior-analytic journals what they look for when they pick reviewers.
The editors rated possible reviewer traits and review qualities. The survey covered expertise, tone, rigor, and even copyediting.
What they found
Top picks were topic expertise, a respectful tone, and sharp critique of design and data.
Copyediting came last. Editors showed mixed views on how much reviewer diversity matters.
How this fits with other research
Cengher et al. (2024) extends their own 2024 primer. The survey says what editors want; the primer shows how to do it.
Cengher et al. (2022) came first. Their survey showed editors wanted reviewer training, which set the stage for the new list of must-have skills.
Iwata (1993) framed peer review as free CE. The new data now spell out exactly which behaviors earn that education.
Why it matters
If you review manuscripts, lead with deep topic knowledge and kindness. Tear apart the design, not the grammar. Skip the red pen on typos. These small shifts raise your chance of being invited back and lift the field’s science.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Before you send your next review, add one line that politely questions the study’s design or data interpretation.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This article describes the outcomes of a survey of 93 editors in chief and associate editors of behavior-analytic journals. We sought information about variables that influence their judgment of the selection of reviewers, selection of review panels, and quality of reviews. When selecting reviewers, participants rated highly expertise on the topic, history of conducting good reviews, and history of writing constructive and respectful reviews. When selecting review panels, participants rated highly stratifying reviewers based on their expertise, avoiding conflicts of interest, and the matching based on the area of expertise between reviewers and authors. When evaluating the quality of a review, participants rated highly considerations related to research design, the science underlying the main idea, and accurate interpretations of the data. Participants did not rate copyediting as important. Overall, the extent to which reviewer selection was influenced by membership in underrepresented groups varied. These findings can inform the development of training programs for teaching peer-review repertoires.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2024 · doi:10.1002/jaba.1033