Purpose – The purpose of this editorial is to announce the winners of the EJM Reviewer of the Year awards, and also to make some observations about successful and effective practice in reviewing scholarly work. Design/methodology/approach – The authors draw from their own experience as reviewers, authors, and editors to provide a set of considerations for those involved in the review process. Findings – The authors propose a set of guidelines for reviewers who wish to make the most of their role in the scientific method. Research limitations/implications – These thoughts are preliminary, and are drawn from personal experiences rather than a wide-ranging survey of stakeholders. Practical implications – Marketing researchers should ensure that they understand their role in the scholarly reviewing process, and that they provide timely and constructive comments on their areas of expertise. Originality/value – This piece should offer marketing researchers considerable value in the context of their own efforts, both as authors and reviewer.
- peer review