The Art of Academic Review: Insights from Sport Management Experts

Not only is serving as a reviewer for academic journals a major aspect of many tenure track positions in sport management, but it is also a time-honored tradition that keeps the peer review process honest. While all scholars understand the basics of writing and reviewing work, fewer feel comfortable doing so in the established review process.

This slight disconnect led the NASSM Conversations coordinators to host the 4th NASSM Conversations on the review process and invited leading scholars and long-time reviewers, Drs. Scott Tainsky, Marlene Dixon, and Daniel Mason to share their wisdom on crafting effective peer reviews. Below are the high points discussed.

Focus on What Matters

Dr. Mason pointed out that less experienced reviewers often get caught up in grammar and APA formatting issues. While these things matter in the review process, they shouldn't be the primary focus of a peer review. The real value of the peer review lies in evaluating the manuscript's theoretical contributions and broader impact on the field.

Additionally, Dr. Tainsky wanted reviewers to not think of themselves as external to the work's success. Instead, they should think of themselves as collaborators rather than critics. Approach each review as if you're working with a co-author. What would you tell them to make it better? How could their presentation be clearer? Are there any flaws in the consistency and flow of the presented work? This mindset shift helps reviewers deliver feedback that genuinely advances the work without getting bogged down in the minor details.

The Art of Constructive Feedback

Dr. Dixon emphasizes a crucial point that is central to any review: specificity is your friend. Instead of saying something general like, "This needs work," reviewers should highlight exactly what needs improvement and why. The why is imperative, as it provides additional room for the author to understand the need for improvement.

Additionally, it’s good practice to acknowledge the strengths of the work you are reviewing. This can provide encouragement to authors that you, as a reviewer, are not simply looking for things to criticize but are truly trying to make the completed project as good as possible. The best reviews create a balanced picture of both what's working and what needs refinement.

When You're Out of Your Depth

We’ve likely all been there–receiving a review request for a topic that's not exactly the topic we are most familiar with or that is directly in our wheelhouse. The panel's advice? Be upfront about it. Contact the editor, explain your limitations, and either decline the request or work with them to specify which aspects you can confidently review and which you may need support with.

Time Management Tips

Multiple readings of a single article are the key to fulfilling your role as a reviewer successfully. Each separate reading needs structure, goals, and most importantly time. Each panelist agreed that a good habit to get into while reviewing is to set a time budget for your review and stick to it. Focus first on the manuscript's core contributions and suitability for publication, and, as Dr. Dixon advises, don't get lost in the details before addressing the fundamentals.

Below is a practical approach that was discussed that can help you as you plan your review process. If you give yourself the requisite time, you could focus on one aspect per reading:

  1. Start with big-picture issues—Core contributions, Suitability for publication

  2. Move to specific concerns—Where are you getting stuck as a reviewer? Are there flaws in the application of theory or methodological approach? Are the conclusions and discussion in-line with what the study set out to find and results?

  3. Save minor edits for last—This is the formatting and grammar portion.

Handling Author Pushback

One thing that many reviewers (and authors) may not know is that authors don't have to implement every suggestion made by the reviewer(s). If the author can justify their decisions as to why they approached the scientific or writing process in the way they did, that is acceptable. This decision to accept or reject reviewer suggestions comes into play in the “Review and Resubmit” process when the article lands back on the reviewer’s desk. Therefore, it was recommended by Dr. Dixon that when reviewing revisions, reviewers should start fresh with the new article rather than just checking off whether the authors followed your previous advice.

Growing as a Reviewer

For scholars who are new to the review process or for those just looking to improve, it was suggested that you read others' reviews when you can. Whether it is the review received by a colleague on a submission or the feedback they have provided as part of their role as a reviewer, there is likely something that can be learned from engaging with and understanding the input.

Additionally, reflect on feedback you receive on your own work. Reframe the feedback as that from a coauthor who is hoping to improve the paper. What are they seeing that you didn’t? How can their suggestions elevate your work? Most importantly, stay open to learning. The best reviewers never stop developing their skills.

Remember, the goal in reviewing is the same as in all of academia—we aren’t striving for perfection but progress. Whether you're reviewing your first manuscript or your hundredth, these insights can help make your next review more effective and constructive.

Previous
Previous

Sport Management Academic Job Postings (AY24-25)

Next
Next

Making Case Studies Work in Sport Management Education: A Professor's Guide