Reviewing best practices

Written by A/Prof Mary Bock (ICA VCS Division Chair from 2021-23)

Reviewing is one of the ways we tend to the fabric of the academic community. We participate as peer reviewers for each other. This helps to maintain the quality of research within our division, for ICA, and for the larger academic community. Here are some things to keep in mind:

  • The first and most important principle for conference reviewing is to consider how you would feel receiving the feedback. Academia can be a cruel place as it is, so aim for constructive criticism with an emphasis on the constructive.
  • Respect the blind nature of the reviewing process and keep what you’ve learned confidential. Do not exploit what you learn from a submission for your own advantage. If a paper has not been properly blinded, or if you can otherwise discern who wrote a submission, alert the program planner immediately. 
  • Remember that your reviews are important for the Division and for the submitter. Reviewing decisions become acceptance and rejection decisions, which can lead to funding decisions and even, eventually, promotion and career-advancement decisions.
  • Before you begin, review the call for papers and familiarize yourself with the Division’s standards. If you believe the paper is not well-suited for the Division, please alert the program planner immediately (do not write a negative review based on a “bad fit.”)
  • Use the “skim, deep read, review” method, to give each submission complete and fair consideration.
  • Review the submission, not the submitter(s). Write about how the project could be improved, not how the submitter should think or create. 
  • Avoid commenting about the writing in ways that undermine ICA’s larger goals for international engagement. Do provide feedback on structure, grammar or formatting matters that interfere with comprehension and clarity. Do not suggest that a submitter seek help from “a native English speaker.”
  • Consider ICA’s efforts to be internationally inclusive and take note when a submission centers a narrow perspective. Examples might be a study that generalizes U.S. media as all media, for instance, or an analysis that is overly Anglo-centric.
  • Ensure your review doesn’t penalize a submission simply because it deals with a controversial or taboo topic. The purpose of scholarly enquiry is to forge an open academic debate and that can’t happen if quality, though controversial or taboo, research is prevented from being presented and discussed.
  • Once you start writing up your notes, review them for their usefulness and tone. All submissions have something to contribute, so consider using the “bad news” sandwich to deliver a critique, by commenting first on something positive, listing areas for improvement, and returning to the positive.
  • Remember that you can provide feedback for the program planner directly, not to be seen by the submitter.
  • Keep in mind that a submitter’s project is not your project. Provide suggestions that could improve the submission in your hands, not for pursuing research you’d like to see.
  • ICA requires qualitative comments. The scoring system for our Division is only part of a review. In fact, the paper management system will not even record your review without qualitative comments. Submitters have worked hard on their papers, and they deserve to know the rationale behind the scores.
  • Do not take on more reviews than you can conceivably finish on time and fairly.

Thank you for your service to the Division and to the academic community.