Peer review is one of the fundamental pillars of scientific knowledge production, yet it is also a skill that develops over time through practice, reflection, and continuous learning. Being an effective reviewer goes beyond simply evaluating a manuscript; it involves actively contributing to the advancement of research by providing rigorous, fair, and constructive feedback. In this sense, reviewing becomes a formative exercise that not only sharpens critical judgment but also improves one’s own writing and ability to position scholarly work.

In this interview, Ernesto Cardamone, the 2024 Best Reviewer Award recipient of the Italian Journal of Marketing, shares his experience and offers practical guidance on approaching the review process effectively. His insights highlight how a high-quality review should move beyond mere evaluation to become a developmental tool for authors and a valuable decision aid for editors.

Through concrete advice and reflections grounded in practice, this interview provides useful direction for scholars seeking to enhance the quality of their reviews while also growing as researchers.

---

---

What, in your experience, makes a review truly helpful to authors and editors?

For authors, helpfulness comes from being developmental rather than merely evaluative. A valuable review not only says what is wrong, but explains why something is problematic and, most importantly, how it could be improved. When I make suggestions, I try to indicate at least a couple of reasonable paths forward, leaving room for the authors to make the final decision.

For editors, a good review is explicit about the manuscript’s main strengths and weaknesses. It does not hide behind generic comments but takes a clear position on the paper’s contribution, positioning, theoretical grounding, and empirical rigor. I always make a point of commenting on the elements I find particularly well developed, because I believe this is both encouraging for the authors and useful for the editor when making a decision. I also like to use the “message to the editor” section to briefly summarize the paper’s key strengths and what I consider most crucial to improve.

In sum:

• Be explicit about strengths and weaknesses to support the editor’s decision..
• Be developmental: explain why issues matter and how they can be improved.
• Provide alternative paths forward, leaving authors room for choice.

---

Based on your experience, what practical advice would you give to scholars to write strong, fair, and developmental reviews? Are there specific steps or mindsets that help produce feedback that is both critical and encouraging?

In an initial phase, I take notes as a reader: What is the paper trying to do? What is the core contribution? Where do I struggle to follow the argument? Only afterward do I organize these notes into a structured review.

I find it helpful to explicitly structure the review around a few key dimensions: positioning and contribution, theoretical soundness, methodological rigor (for each study), and clarity of presentation. This ensures that feedback is systematic rather than driven by isolated impressions.

I also try to be transparent about what I consider major versus minor issues and explicitly acknowledge the manuscript’s strengths. Recognizing what works well is not just polite; it signals to authors what to preserve as they revise the weaker parts.

In sum:

• First read as a reader, then write as a reviewer.
• Structure the review around key dimensions.
• Distinguish clearly between major and minor issues.

---

What have you personally gained from engaging in the review process, and how has it influenced the way you write and position your own research?

First, being a reviewer gives you early access to colleagues’ perspectives on a given topic. You are often selected as a reviewer because of your expertise in that area, but reading others’ work still enriches you and opens up new ways of thinking. Given the time constraints we all face, the papers we read “for pleasure” are often read more quickly and less thoroughly than those we review, which instead become a valuable opportunity to stay up to date in a deeper and more focused way.

Second, the practice of reviewing trains you to evaluate a set of standard elements (e.g., positioning, contribution, structure, theoretical soundness, and empirical rigor). This exercise inevitably transfers to my own research, where I apply the same checklist.

Finally, through reviewing, I have come to fully appreciate the importance of writing a solid and compelling introduction (as John B. Ford also notes in his blog post): it can truly influence the mindset with which the rest of the paper is read.

In sum:

• Reviewing is a deep and focused way to stay up to date in your field.
• It trains you to evaluate research through a consistent checklist.
• It sharpens your awareness of how key sections, especially the introduction, shape the reading of a paper.

---

Copertina: Image by Anne Karakash from Pixabay