We've asked reviewers who were recently awarded "Best Reviewer" for their input on what they consider to be important when being a reviewer:
"To offer constructive and actionable feedback within the scope of the submission for authors to improve their manuscripts"
Siu Loon Hoe - Best Reviewer 2016
"Regarding a manuscript's content, I look for evidence that the author thought deeply about the issues and has something original to say, rather than hashing together glib or erroneous statements and perhaps hoping no-one will notice; and regarding expression, I look for manuscripts that have a solid, logical structure with ideas and associated evidence presented progressively, as a barrister might when presenting a case. I get concerned when conjuctive adverbs like 'thus' and 'therefore' are used repeatedly to claim logical flow when none exists."
Laurie Field - Best Reviewer 2017
"Before accepting the paper I have to be convinced. And I have to see good arguments about the choices made. I also look for the critical dialogue of learning organization/organizational learning which is the purpose of the journal. Without that, no accpetance."
Carina Abrahamson Löfström - Best Reviewer 2018