JOLE emphasizes constructive reviews, designed not only to ensure rigor, but also to support scholars in their work. Following, please find some helpful practices in developing reviews that are generative and effective.

Before You Begin Your Review

• You’ve taken step one by agreeing to serve as a reviewer for JOLE! Even if you haven’t published yourself, a journal that asks you to review thinks your perspective is valuable. By the way: being a reviewer will make you a better writer as you read more!
• Don’t forget to put your service as a reviewer on your CV/résumé!  “Ad hoc reviewer: Journal of Leadership Education” has a nice ring to it and shows your engagement with the field!

• The reviewing ethos of JOLE: the process should be developmental. Even with manuscripts that are not appropriate for the journal or with difficulties that may lead to rejection, approach each review as critique, not as a takedown: how could the author make this manuscript better for another journal?
• Verify the article type and check the JOLE site for word count and author instructions. The author’s invitation to review should mention the article type, and the JOLE website details the format expected of each article.
• Read the whole manuscript and take notes. Abstract, tables, everything. Some reviewers print out a hard copy and use a brightly-colored pen: to mark the following: minor errata, major questions / critiques, and compliments. 
• Then: take a deep breath and make sure you are being fair (tough, but fair and/or kind, but fair) before writing your review.  We want to avoid both “halo” and “horn” effects dependent on our moods.

The First Paragraph of Your Review

• Summarize the article in 2-3 sentences. Yes, there’s an abstract – but summarizing helps both you and the author(s) know how you are interpreting their work. 
• For some reviewers, the typical three sentences might include the following: 1) thesis, 2) methods / approach, 3) results / evidence of efficacy.
• I you have any notable overall compliments, list them next. If you do not, omit.
• The last sentence of the first paragraph of your review is the thesis: the magnitude of the critiques. Yes, even though JOLE is developmental, we don't want to expend too much of the review text on what is good! Thus, we want to support the author by being clear right up front. Following, we list a few additional tips: 
• Do not mention your recommended dispensation in the review text because you may suggest acceptance while another reviewer recommends rejection – awkward if in text.
• If you are going to recommend rejection, please state up front that you found several issues with the manuscript in its current form that you will detail further.
• If you are going to recommend acceptance or revise and resubmit, please mention that you have suggestions for further improvement.

• Give each major critique its own paragraph, usually two to four. Some common major critiques:
• Stating the thesis in the discussion / results section. The author(s) should not use the manuscript to discover their thesis – they should state their thesis up front, no later than the last paragraph of the introduction, then scaffold the rest of the paper to support it!
• Poor organization is one of the most common issues with manuscripts.  It is surprising how many methods sections are located after results, or how many papers include two research questions that are not - but should be  - separated out in different subsections.
• Lack of helpful context. What were the applicable learning outcomes?  If a class is the setting for a study, what level of class was it (undergraduate?  Intro level)?  If you gathered data from Universities, what kind(s): size, affiliation (public / private), dedicated major / minor program?  What are the demographics of the sample?
• Assuming the reader is omniscient.  Yes, it is a writing art knowing how much to explain a citation’s argument – but more often, it comes from using “in-language” without defining it, internal terms without operationalizing them, or talking about something with which the author is familiar but the reader from reading the manuscript would not be.
• Lack of transparency about limitations. To be fair, reviewers can sometimes hold this against a paper and ask authors to write the paper they wish they wrote, but sometimes there are issues with the methods, argument, etc. that we would like the author to be transparent about proactively.
• Inappropriate for the journal. Maybe it’s a poorly-written manuscript otherwise, maybe it’s not – but if it’s not of interest to the JOLE readership, then it’s not a good fit.  If it’s not about leadership education, it should find a home elsewhere. Suggest other journals if you know of any that might be good fits.
• Lack of explicit statement of contribution.  Authors shouldn’t overpromise (“No one has looked at this!” is rarely true, especially if the paper has a Works Cited section), but they should be convincing as to what makes their piece is of interest to JOLE’s audience.
• If possible, give the author(s) suggestions on how to improve after detailing the critique. Part of the JOLE ethos: don’t just critique, help authors improve!  How would you reorganize the paper for clarity?  What limitations might you need the author(s) to confront head-on?
• List minor errata at the end in a bulleted list with corresponding page numbers: incorrect / missing citations, grammar mistakes, “this”es without a clear referent, etc.

Ratings, Editor Comments, Revise & Resubmits

• Emerald has a list of rubric questions where you can elaborate on specific components of the article, e.g., APA style, whether methods (if applicable) are justified, etc.
• Don’t forget to verify the article type and fill out the respective ratings – and leave the ones for other article types blank!
• Use ratings of four or five to indicate satisfaction; ratings of one or two indicate that it is a deficiency major enough it likely merits its own critique paragraph.
• You can opt to leave more global comments that speak to the rubric scale ratings, but more targeted feedback can speak to those points individually and more meaningfully.
• Utilize editor comments! The editor does read them, and they can be of help in rendering a decision.
• If the article is given a revise and resubmit (R&R) decision – JOLE permits two revisions before an ultimate decision must be made – it is likely you will be asked to review the revision.  Please review again (except for rare cases where you have an unshakable reject recommendation – let the editor know).  Authors are supposed to turn in a reviewer table and track changes draft detailing edits.

Interested in serving as a review for JOLE?
Please complete this form, and a member of the editorial team will be in touch!