Peer review depends entirely on scholars willing to volunteer their time and expertise, and journals are consistently looking to expand their pool of qualified reviewers — particularly as research output across economics and management continues to grow. If you’ve been considering reviewing but aren’t sure how to start, here’s what the role actually involves and how to get involved.
Why Reviewing Is Worth Your Time
Beyond contributing to the scholarly community, reviewing regularly exposes you to research approaches, framings, and methodological choices outside your own immediate work — often before that work is public — which can meaningfully sharpen your own research instincts. Many scholars also report that reviewing improves their own writing, since evaluating others’ clarity (or lack of it) makes you more attentive to your own.
What Reviewing Actually Involves
A typical review request includes the manuscript, a deadline (commonly two to four weeks), and a request to evaluate the paper’s contribution, methodological rigor, clarity, and fit with the journal, usually culminating in a written report and a recommendation to the editor. Reviewers are not expected to rewrite the paper — the goal is a clear, substantive assessment that helps the editor make an informed decision and helps the author improve the work.
Who Is Qualified to Review
Formal credentials matter less than genuine subject-matter expertise. PhD candidates well into their dissertation research, postdoctoral researchers, and faculty at any career stage with relevant expertise are all reasonable candidates — many journals, including this one, welcome reviewers who are not yet full professors, provided their expertise is a genuine match for the manuscript.
How to Express Interest
If you’d like to be considered as a reviewer for the Journal of Economics and Management, reach out to the editorial team directly, noting your specific areas of expertise and methodological background — this helps editors match you accurately to relevant submissions when they arise. Reviewing your own understanding of the journal’s scope beforehand helps you gauge whether your expertise is likely to be a good match.
Writing an Effective Review
A useful review typically addresses: whether the paper’s contribution is clearly stated and genuinely novel, whether the methodology is appropriate and correctly executed, whether the argument and evidence support the stated conclusions, and specific, actionable suggestions for improvement — organized clearly rather than as a stream-of-consciousness list.
Reviewing Etiquette Worth Knowing
- Decline promptly if you have a conflict of interest or genuinely lack the relevant expertise, rather than accepting and delivering a superficial review
- Respect confidentiality — reviewed manuscripts are not public information and shouldn’t be discussed, cited, or built upon before publication
- Aim for constructive, specific feedback rather than dismissive or unnecessarily harsh commentary, even when recommending rejection
Reviewing as a Long-Term Investment in Your Field
Consistent, high-quality reviewing builds a reputation within your subfield that often extends well beyond the specific journals you review for — many editors remember reviewers who consistently deliver thoughtful, well-reasoned reports, and this reputation can open doors to editorial board invitations and other service opportunities over time.
For broader guidance on peer review best practices applicable across journals, COPE’s ethical guidelines for peer reviewers offer a thorough, widely referenced overview of the role’s expectations and responsibilities.
Interested in reviewing, or ready to submit your own work? Review the journal’s scope and explore the paper submission page for current submission details.