Abstract
The July 2007 issue of CCR elicited review process horror stories. I expect that everyone has their own vast collection. I certainly do. However, I found that picking my favorite story to be like choosing my favorite offspring. Therefore, rather than focusing on a single tale of woe I have tried to extrapolate some key points from across the suboptimal reviewing I have observed. I write this essay from the perspective of an author who has years of accepts and rejects. However, this note is also greatly informed by my refereeing activities over the years (on PCs, reviewing for journals, editorial boards, etc.). My intent is to make general observations in the hopes of contributing to a conversation that improves our overall review processes and ultimately helps us establish a stronger set of community values with regards to what we expect and appreciate in papers. While I strive for generality I do not claim the observations are unbiased or that I have closed all my open wounds in this area. Before going any further it is important that I note several things:
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
