这是公管领域的顶级期刊Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory在Twitter上发的一系列关于审稿的tweets，我理了一下，供各位参考。另外因为JPART换了主编，特别问过了，与之前JPART一般仅仅关心政府与非营利组织的关系不一样了，欢迎一切研究非营利组织的投稿。

JPART的主编们经常在各种会议上被问及评审过程。所以他们干脆就写了几条推来解释一下这个流程。（括号中是我画蛇添足揣测的，小标题也是）

选取审稿人

JPART从审稿人库中选择审稿人，这个库里人很多，所以会根据文章的领域和主题选，从参考文献引用的人里选，从应在参考文献却没有在的人里选（这一点很考验编辑的功力，对领域的熟悉程度，但同时也对作者提出了很高的要求，该引却没有引意味着作者的文献部分恐怕还不到家，比如我最近因为开始进入coproduction的领域，就被Jeff Brudney无情指出你怎么能忽略Ferris的工作呢），从JPART过往的审稿人中选那些一直提供高质量又及时的审稿人，以及试试新审稿人（所以如果是第一次接到顶级期刊的审稿邀请，一定要认真对待，因为这个也是你积累人品和名声的时刻）。

然后主编就会发邮件给潜在审稿人并且希望他们能很快回应（通常是24小时）。但有些时候，第一封邮件可能发到了垃圾邮件里（因为通常审稿邀请是通过期刊网站发出的，各个学校的邮箱系统对这种邮件的反应不一样，很可能会被归类到垃圾邮箱里，邀请的审稿人就没有看到。我目前的解决方案是将所有学校的邮件再发一份到我的Gmail，然后通过Gmail的转寄服务以学校邮箱的名义回复），然后你突然收到第二封跟进的关于审稿的邮件，就会莫名其妙。所以这套邀请审稿人的系统并不完美。

对审稿人的期待

如果你不能审稿或者不想，请立即拒绝。没有必要等一会。因为你一等，期刊就要等，更重要的是就会让作者等（这里肯定要有人吐槽审稿等待的时间，我觉得PA领域还算好的，一般来说不会超过三个月。之前有个期刊让我等了六个多月然后编辑简单给了理由拒稿，都没有外审，我觉得这是很不负责任的）。

如果你拒绝审稿，请建议其他的审稿人。你是这个领域的专家（被选为审稿人的理由），你可能知道一些同行是期刊编辑所不知道的。所以你的推荐能够扩充期刊的审稿人库。

如果你答应审稿，JPART要求一个月内就完成。快到截止期时，JPART系统会发提醒给你。第一次是还有一个星期的时候，第二次是截止日当天。

审稿稍微拖延一点是可以的。但如果你需要更多的时间，请通知编辑。拖延总比不做好。所以如果你需要时间来写一份出色的审稿意见，这当然是可以的，对作者也有好处（对比其他领域，我觉得PA一个月的审稿时间的确是稍微短了一点。适当延长一点不是坏事，慢工出细活嘛）。

如果你最终无法完成评审，也请联系编辑。这让人失望，但编辑知情后可以立刻另外找审稿人或者要求一位期刊编委会成员迅速给出意见。我们的目标是尽快回复作者，所以一旦你无法完成评审，请务必让我们知道。

对审稿报告的期待

一个好的报告是全面的、清晰的、具体的、诚实的、促进的和及时的。

全面：审稿意见覆盖理论、研究设计、数据收集、方法、结果、和相关性。

如果你不能评审一篇论文中的其中一些部分，因为不具备这方面的专业知识，请在审稿报告中表明这一点，也请知会编辑。

清晰具体：提供给作者清晰的建议和指示。如果你希望作者补充文献，请指出是什么文献。如果你希望更多的理论，是哪一方面的理论。如果你希望作者做X，却没有解释X是什么意思，对作者来说是不公平的。所以请给出具体的建议。

诚实：如果你建议拒稿，你的审稿意见需要告诉作者为什么这个文章还不够格发表。但没有必要用语残忍或羞辱作者，你给作者的反馈和你的建议需要一致。

促进：审稿并不仅仅是（为期刊）起守门员的作用和维持期刊的标准，而是为整个领域发展研究。即便当我们拒一篇稿件，我们也希望能帮助作者改进这个论文。不妨将审稿看作是一项教学活动——为需要改善的文稿提供促进性的建议。

及时：审稿人应该及时完成审稿，编辑团队才能及时做个决定，作者也因此才能推进他们的学术。

语气：审稿怎么能更友善。将批评、建议聚焦在研究或论文上，而不是作者身上，会大有帮助。

比如说你想写The author fails to account for...，不妨改成The model doesn‘t account for...；又比如

你想写The authors confuse A and B，不如改成The manuscript confuses A and B。 

关于匿名审稿

审稿是双盲，但并不是匿名的。

1.审稿人有时候认为他们知道谁是作者（他们常常搞错）

2.PA是一个小圈子，我们知道作者是因为数据，主题，位置等

3.我们常常在会议上见到初稿演示

如果你知道作者，但你可以给出公正的评价，这还是双盲。你应该写审稿意见。

如果你不能保持公正，就不要评审。请推荐其他审稿人。

如果审稿人Google论文题目，审稿人就违反了双盲评审（但大部分人应该忍不住吧，谁让我手贱呢。但不得不说PA领域不像其他领域一样，保密性还是比较好的，我审过的文章没有一篇是Google搜得到的）。编辑无法阻止你这么做。但编辑希望审稿人简单点，就专注审稿即可 —— 这才是正道。

会议论文：论文初稿有时候会出现在会议网站上，SSRN或ResearchGate等网站上，这些并不是发表的论文，所以可以继续投稿给JPART。投稿的版本如果被送出去给审稿人，审稿人不应该关心其他的版本。

审稿人基于其在主题或方法上的专业知识审阅稿件。编辑作出是否发表的决定。编辑常常作出与审稿意见不一致的决定（这有两种解读，一种是审稿意见很正面，但最后拒稿；另一种是审稿意见不那么正面，但挡不住编辑喜欢。我不知道哪一种情况才是真的，但我猜在PA领域后一种稍微常见一点，毕竟我们是个有爱的领域）。

编辑决定会综合考虑三个审稿人的意见，审稿意见是否一致，期刊的宗旨，待发表的文稿里有什么，这个领域的其他工作，与领域的相关性等等。编辑考虑的图景要比审稿人看的更广。

原文如下：

1

We attend a lot of conferences to serve on panels where we are asked about the review process. Here we will break it down and also answer a few questions we regularly receive. 

We select reviewers from a database - search by field/topic, select from the reference list, select people who should be in the reference list but are not, select reviewers that have a history with @JPART1991 & consistently provide thorough, timely reviews, & test new reviewers.

We send invitations to review and hope to hear back from potential reviewers quickly. Many of our correspondence get caught in spam filters, so you might receive an email that says "We are following up..." but you never got the first invite. It's not a perfect system.

2

If you cannot review the paper (or don't want to), please decline the invitation immediately. There's no need to wait - which keeps us waiting, but more important delays the author getting feedback. 

If you decline the invitation to review, PLEASE suggest alternate reviewers. You are an expert (that's why we asked you) and you know experts that we might not know. Your recommendations help diversify the reviewer pool. 

If you agree to do the review, you have about a month to do it. You will then start getting reminders from our system. The first reminds you that it is due in a week. The following reminders are after the due date.

It's OK to be a little late. If you are going to be extra late or need a little more time, please contact the editor. Being late is better than not doing it. So if you need time to do an excellent review, that works for us - and is good for authors.

If you're not able to complete the review, pls contact the editor. It's disappointing, but knowing it isn't coming means we can get a new reviewer or ask an editorial board member to do one quickly. The goal is to get this back to the author, so let us know if you cannot do it.

3

A good review is thorough, clear, specific, honest, developmental, and timely.

Thorough: covers theory, research design, data collection, method, findings, relevance. 

If you are not able to review some portion (due to lack of expertise), please note that clearly in the review & the note to the editor.

Clear & Specific: Offer clear advice and instruction to the author. if you want more literature, which literature? if you want more theory, which theory? It is not fair to say the author needs to do X, without explaining what you mean by X. Be specific in the advice.

Honest: If you recommend reject to the editor, the text of the review to the author should indicate the reasons why the paper is not publishable. There is no need to be cruel or to insult the author, but the feedback to the author should be consistent with the recommendation.

Developmental: Reviewing is not just gatekeeping & holding standards for the journal, it's developing research for the field. Even when we reject a paper, we want to improve it. Consider reviewing a teaching exercise - offer developmental advice to manuscripts that need more work。

Timely: reviews need to be completed in a timely manner, so the editorial team can make a decision and so the authors can move forward with their scholarship.

Tone - How to be "nicer" in reviews. It can be helpful to frame criticism/advice to be about the research or the paper, rather than the author. 

EX: The author fails to account for...

The model doesn't account for...

EX: The authors confuse A and B. 

The manuscript confuses A&B

4

The process is double blind, not anonymous. 

1. Reviewers sometimes think they know the author (they are often wrong)

2. PA is a small field, we often know authors b/c of dataset, topic, location, etc

3. We often see drafts presented at conferences

If you know the author, but can be objective, it is still blind. You should do the review. 

If you cannot be objective, don’t do the review. But recommend someone else who can do it. 

If a reviewer googles the title of a paper, the reviewer has broken the blind review process. There is nothing the editorial team can do to prevent this. But we hope reviewers simply review the blind manuscript - it's the ethical thing to do. 

Conference papers: Draft papers on conference websites, SSRN or ResearchGate etc. which are not "published" papers can be submitted to JPART. The submitted paper is the version under review - reviewers should not seek out other versions.

Reviewers review the content of the manuscript, based on their expertise related to the topic or method. Editors make decisions about publication. Editors often make decisions that don't appear to align with your review. 

Editorial decisions take into account 3 reviews, cohesion across the reviews, journal mission, what else is in the pipeline, other work in that area, relevance, and so on. There's a bigger picture than what the reviewer sees.

关于审稿的几篇文章 Angrist：学界新手如何应对残酷评论 | 愿你被世界温柔相待 | 在经历了第5轮修改后，绝望的作者暴起反击

更多学术边角料：学术会议参会基本礼仪 | 开会指南 | 找工作的核心挑战：如何建立信任 | 谈谈美国找教职过程中的面试问题 | 如何在美国公共管理学界找一份教职 | 读博士 | 怎样在四年内拿到博士