The Generous Spirit of the Peer Review Process: Perspectives and Insights From the HRDQ Editorial Team on Providing High‐Quality Reviews

Abstract

Are you inclined to "agree," are you "unavailable," or do you "decline" when you receive a personal review invitation from Human Resource Development Quarterly (HRDQ)? We sincerely hope that you will accept our invitations to perform reviews when we reach out to personally solicit your expertise. However, we do acknowledge that many reviewers immediately decline, note their lack of availability, or send us e-mails acknowledging the personal and professional commitments that preclude them from contributing to the journal in the capacity of a reviewer. We fully appreciate that many potential reviewers are being overly burdened with a high volume of review requests from many different journals, and that, at times, declining reviews may be necessary, particularly if declining is better than not delivering (Trevino, 2008). We realize that challenging work and unanticipated life event issues may present themselves, or that confl icts of interest might arise regarding author identity, or that performing a review by a specifi ed due date may simply not be possible.Yet, the high quality of the manuscripts that we publish in HRDQ is largely contingent on the high quality and timeliness of the peer review process. Therefore, we collectively decided to develop this editorial on performing high-quality reviews because, in our varied roles, many of us often have the task of reading the majority of the manuscripts that are sent out for review, reading all of the feedback provided by the reviewers who are invited to review a specifi c manuscript, as well as synthesizing the reviewer and editorial feedback in the process of preparing decision letters. We observe fi rsthand those reviewers who consistently develop high-quality reviews, but we also see areas where improvements can be made in further developing reviewer E D I T O R I A L

Metascience: Guidelines for the Practitioner

“…Some of these include questionable research practices, low power, degrees of freedom, and the utilization of post hoc hypotheses as a priori hypotheses (Van Bavel, Mende-Siedlecki, Brady, & Reinero, 2016). Others have called for the field of HRD to move toward meta-analytic reporting standards: “for the reporting of sample demographics, descriptive statistics including correlation or covariance matrices, test statistics, and effect sizes” (Nimon & Astakhova, 2015, p. 232; see also Ellinger et al, 2013).…”

Research on Evaluation of Human Resources Competitiveness of Small and Medium Enterprises Based on FCE

“…It is directly proportional to the performance of SMEs. [3] Domestic research started late but developed rapidly. Xiuhua Liu started from the factors necessary for the formation of human resources competitiveness, and established 13 secondary factors including the quantity and quality of human resources, management system, capability status, market performance, and the incentive mechanism and market share.…”

Improving the Rigor of Quantitative HRD Research: Four Recommendations in Support of the General Hierarchy of Evidence

“…Although not explicitly mentioned in Ellinger et al (), reliability coefficients can be important to meta‐analysis studies, as effect sizes may be attenuated when reliability is less than perfect (but see Nimon, Zientek, and Henson [] that illustrates how effect sizes may be inflated in the presence of correlated error), and should therefore be reported in quantitative studies that analyze scale scores composed of multiple items. When reliability coefficients are reported, meta‐analytic researchers have the opportunity to adjust effect sizes based on the measurement error implied in the reliability coefficient (Schmidt, Le, & Oh, ).…”