See my reviewer profile on Publon.
If you have projects or submission drafts on my topics of interest, consider sending me your work for feedback, or emailing me about possible collaborations.
If you plan to submit manuscripts on my topics of interest, consider suggesting me as a reviewer.
My general approach to reviews:
- I sign my reviews. I believe in reviewer transparency.
- I am a careful reviewer and I invest time in my reviews. I will do my best to make sure I understand the manuscript before I write feedback.
- I am a fast reviewer. If I accept a review then I will prioritize it, and will do my best to review it in less than two weeks.
- I offer positive constructive feedback. I prefer seeing the potential in papers and data and I offer constructive ways to improve. For empirical papers – If methods and data are sound, I rarely see a reason for rejection.
- I believe in open science, transparency, and reproducibility. I will request that you report everything and share your procedures, materials, entire data, and documented code. I will also ask that you detail your decisions for exclusions, sample size (power), and selective analyses. This will also help me provide you with constructive suggestions and possibly even additional code to further improve your manuscript.
- I am accepting of imperfect results and null findings. I see those as part of the process and as important as ‘significant’ findings.
- I support the Peer Reviewers’ Openness Initiative
- I liked most of what’s recommended in “Peer-Review Guidelines Promoting Replicability and Transparency in Psychological Science” (AMPPS, 2018)
- I try and follow reviewer guidelines such as “Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency” (more here)
- I have a preference for journals that follow stricter TOP guidelines
Example that I reuse:
Requests and comments regarding all studies (these are now standard requests I make following the so-called “replication crisis” in psychology and the need for more transparency and openness in psychological science, see more information here – https://osf.io/hadz3/; the editor can decide which of these are not important for the editor/journal, but I strongly recommend supporting as many of these as possible):
- Please include power analyses and indicate how sample size was determined.
- Please include a statement on whether data collection was completed prior to looking at the data.
- Please include supplementary materials with all procedure and stimuli used, including full scripts and translations in both native language and English.
- Please include demographic information for all studies (N, gender, mean age, std age). Please report any exclusions of participants, or lack of.
- Please include confidence intervals.
- Please indicate exact p values with three decimal digits.
- Please confirm that participants were randomly assigned into the experimental conditions.
- Please report N, means, and standard deviations for all conditions and all measures in all studies, and not just summary statistics. You can do a summary table.
- If possible, I (and the academic community) would greatly appreciate it if you decide to share your dataset and code with the academic community on Open Science Framework. I understand how some authors might be hesitant, but my experience is that both the community and the author both typically benefit, and there is much more to gain than lose. At the very least, please share this with us reviewers (http://help.osf.io/m/sharing/l/524049-view-only-links).