Jump to Content

< back

School of Management Reading Group

A high-quality review from a colleague can identify bits of unclear writing, logical holes and methodological ambiguities. And the best part is, you’ve identified these problems before submitting the paper or grant proposal for formal review, with time to fix them! Many journals not only recommend a pre-submission peer review, they require that authors identify their peer reviewers as part of the submission process.  

In the School of Management, we recognise the value of peer reviews. We have assembled a small group of "readers“ who have extensive experience submitting and reviewing papers, proposals, and reports:

  • Tricia Vilkinas
  • Carol Kulik
  • Howard Harris
  • Joanna Crossman
  • Ian Cody
  • Peter Chen

Some feedback from staff members in the School of Management:

I have never had anyone engage so thoroughly with a piece of my work...I saw new opportunities to tighten my arguments to respond to the journal reviewers’ feedback.

Author working on a revise-and-resubmit

[The reader] gave me constructive suggestions and did a great job for me by reading my proposal. [The reader] showed me where I was using technical jargon that wouldn’t be understood by most assessors.

First-time grant proposal author  

[The reader] was really a great help in focusing the paper! Once we agreed on the basic structure, the paper was much better, and writing it was much less stressful. We learned a lot about collaborative writing that will help us save time, avoid strife, and write better.

ECR coauthors preparing a special issue submission



top^