If you consider contributing to Electronic Markets as a reviewer or a guest editor, please feel free to contact us. To qualify as a reviewer for Electronic Markets, you should at least be an advanced PhD student with profound knowledge in a specific area concerning either our journal’s scope or methodological approaches.
All members of the editorial board are expected to contribute an average of three reviews per year. Typically, the review should be completed four weeks after the invitation by the responsible editor. If you should be unable to provide a review due to the content of the submission or lack of time, we appreciate your early feedback. As a reviewer you can support the authors to develop their paper and to prepare it for a broader audience. We hope that the following guiding principles will be of help to you during the review process.
- At the beginning of your review, please summarize the content of the paper. This can be helpful for the senior editor and also supports the authors in determining the comprehensibility of their reasoning. In the first section you can also comment on your expertise in relation to the paper under review so that the authors and editors will be better able to weigh and interpret your comments.
- Your review should include an overall reaction to the submission but also point out specific problematic aspects. This is especially helpful if the comments are made with reference to page and line numbers. When referring to necessary revisions, the suggestions for improvement should be as concrete as possible. Sometimes it might also be useful to include recommended further reading.
- Make sure to always evaluate submissions constructively. This includes accepting the author’s research framework and commenting on the problematic consequences that arise from the use of a certain framework instead of criticizing the initial assumptions themselves.
- Another important aspect of a constructive review is the inclusion of the paper’s strengths and accomplishments. If the submission is treated in an objective and respectful way, authors will be more willing to consider and implement the reviewer’s criticism. This should be considered even if a paper has to be rejected. In this case, suggestions about future research directions or advice on future methodology can be extremely helpful. At the end of the review, the paper’s contribution to the scientific or practical field should be commented on.
We are thankful for our reviewers' excellent work in the past and hope to be able to continue welcoming many passionate reviewers on our editorial board in the future.