Faculty & Research
Reviewer Information
To Our Reviewers
The Cornell Quarterly relies heavily on our reviewers to help us in selecting the best possible work to publish. We greatly appreciate your willingness to serve in this way. As a reviewer, your name will appear on an acknowledgment page at the beginning of the following year’s volume.
While the CQ is the oldest and best known of the hospitality-related research journals, it nevertheless competes with other hospitality journals and those relating to management research generally. We encourage our authors to submit papers based in part on our effort to maintain a short turnaround time for manuscript acceptance and to offer helpful, high quality reviews. This effort hinges on the participation of our reviewers.
To that end we ask our reviewers to consider the following aspects of their reviews: timeliness, substance, and contribution to the work. In that regard, we know that some reviews will be favorable to the manuscript in question, while other reviews necessarily will be unfavorable. In the latter case, we ask that reviewers offer their expertise regarding ways to improve the paper, to the extent possible.
In all cases, a collegial approach is the best. Even if you find a particular manuscript to be weak and unacceptable, a professional approach and tone is most appropriate. In that regard, be as supportive of the manuscript as you can, and be consistent in your comments and recommendation. That is, for instance, don’t write a negative review and then recommend acceptance.
Timeliness
To be fair to authors, we ask reviewers to return their reviews within 30 days of receiving the assignment. Should you not be able to meet that standard, please inform the editor as soon as this becomes apparent. Remember that a single tardy review holds up the entire process. Please don’t wait to the end of the review period to determine that you cannot do the review.
Improving the Manuscript
As an expert reviewer, you are in a position to make a substantive contribution to each manuscript. Rather than merely say yes or no to a manuscript, we ask you to offer suggestions for improvement, particularly if the paper is poorly written but makes a worthwhile contribution to its field. Specific comments are the most helpful, whereas it is difficult to take action based on general impressions.
Even if a paper cannot be salvaged, you can make suggestions for improving a subsequent manuscript. On the other hand, if a paper is nearly good enough, your comments will make the difference between an inferior paper and an outstanding article. Because the hospitality industry is a global business, many of the CQ’s authors are not native English speakers. We have asked those authors to adjust their papers’ syntax by engaging professional editors, but this is another instance where we must ask reviewers to consider the concepts presented over the writing style. Above all, be authoritative in your review. If you are not certain of a specific critical point, please check it or indicate that you are uncertain.
Remember that your recommendation should not be included in your review (which will be shared with the author). Your recommendation can be specified separately.
Double-blind Reviews
CQ uses double-blind reviews, and thus if you find that you know or can guess who wrote the paper, your ability to offer a review is compromised. If you find that you cannot offer an objective review, please return the manuscript and so state. Likewise, please do not take actions that might allow authors to determine who has reviewed their papers (including discussing the paper with your colleagues).
Pointers on the Substance of the Review
Below are a few pointers on what to look for in a manuscript.
• Theory: Does the paper test, create, or extend management theory in a meaningful way? Does the study inform or improve our understanding of prior theory? Are major concepts clearly defined?
• Literature Review: Does the paper cite appropriate literature and provide proper credit to existing work on the topic? If not, can you offer important references that the author has missed? Does the paper contain an appropriate number of references (i.e., neither over-referencing nor under-referencing)?
• Method: Do the sample, measures, methods, observations, procedures, and statistical analyses ensure internal and external validity? Are the statistical procedures used correctly and appropriately? Are the major assumptions of the statistical techniques reasonably well met (i.e., no major violations)?
• Integration: Does the study provide a good test of the theory and hypotheses, or sufficient empirical grounds for building new theory? Is the method chosen—either qualitative or quantitative—appropriate for the research question and theory?
• Contribution: Does the paper make a new and meaningful contribution to the management literature in terms of theory, empirical knowledge, and management practice? Is the topic important and interesting? Is the length of the paper commensurate with its contribution?
• Citations: Have you given proper reference or citation to the original source of the comments that you write in the review if they are taken from others' work (or even your own)?