Reviewing manuscripts for behavior‐analytic journals: A primer
Use the four-pillar checklist to turn your next manuscript review into a clear, kind, and useful report.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Cengher et al. (2024) wrote a how-to guide for reviewing behavior-analytic manuscripts.
They list four pillars: take responsibility, think of the reader, be kind, and judge merit carefully.
The paper gives line-by-line tips and sample wording you can drop straight into your next review.
What they found
The guide shows that a good review is not a long list of complaints.
Instead, it balances praise, clear problems, and helpful next steps the author can act on.
How this fits with other research
Fraidlin et al. (2023) takes the same kind tone into supervision. They have trainees practice giving peer feedback so they learn to be constructive before they become supervisors.
Luiselli (2010) told us how to write more papers; Cengher updates the story by telling us how to review them well.
Gilroy et al. (2019) push for open data, while Cengher pushes for open, fair words. Both aim to make our science easier to trust.
Why it matters
You will be asked to review. Use the four pillars. Start with something positive, name the big fixes, and give examples. Your review becomes a free mini-consult that shapes the field and your own reputation.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Open your last review draft and add one warm opener plus one numbered action step for the author.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The peer-review component of the editorial process is designed to facilitate quality control, legitimize scientific research, and self-regulate scientific communities. Even though serving as a reviewer undoubtedly has direct and indirect benefits, the peer-review system and the methods of teaching scholars to conduct reviews are nascent and relatively underdeveloped. This article describes the peer-review process and provides recommendations for writing reviews for scientific journals. The recommendations were developed based on the expertise and preferences of editors in chief and associate editors for behavior-analytic journals (Cengher & LeBlanc, 2024), and they include honoring your responsibility, knowing your audience, being constructive and kind, and carefully evaluating the merits of the study or review. These guidelines may serve as a primer for scholars who want to conduct reviews for scientific journals in behavior analysis.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2024 · doi:10.1002/jaba.1034