Length vs. Substance: Reflections on Reviewer Reports and Editorial Expectations
Peer review is the backbone of scholarly publishing, ensuring the quality, credibility, and integrity of scientific research. High-quality reviews help authors refine manuscripts and assist editors in making informed decisions. But what exactly counts as “high-quality”?
Expectations regarding the depth, structure, and length of a review often differ from the actual needs of a manuscript. This tension, between the editorial desire for detailed reports and the practical substance required, can create challenges for reviewers and editors alike.
In this post, I reflect on a real-world experience that highlights the nuanced dynamics of reviewer expectations in academic publishing.
Case Context: A Short Review Sparks Questions
As a seasoned reviewer for multiple journals, I was surprised when an editorial team contacted me about the brevity of a review I submitted. Their feedback suggested my report needed a more detailed analysis because it mainly addressed general elements such as the study’s alignment with the journal’s scope and its implications for theory and practice.
Initially, I felt a bit offended because the email seemed to critique the depth and quality of my review. But upon reflection, I realized there were valid points to consider. The manuscript I reviewed was already comprehensive, having addressed issues that often appear in initial submissions.
This study, which explored AI-based trading mechanisms in financial markets, had strong datasets, methodology, and well-justified results. Normally, first-round submissions raise concerns about replicability, robustness checks, and risk-adjusted returns. In this case, the authors had likely refined these elements through prior submissions elsewhere.
When Manuscripts Are “Pre-Polished”
Given the manuscript’s apparent maturity, I submitted a concise review recommending minor revisions to strengthen the connection between the study and the journal’s theme and to clarify implications for academics and practitioners. The technical aspects were already well-handled.
This situation highlights a broader issue. Editors often rely on standardized criteria such as review length or structured checklists to assess the quality of reports. Reviewers naturally focus on substance and not arbitrary word counts. Forcing reviewers to artificially inflate reports risks diluting the quality of feedback.
Aligning Expectations: Editors vs. Reviewers
The challenge is not trivial. On one hand, editorial teams aim to ensure consistency, rigor, and accountability in peer review. On the other hand, reviewers assess the manuscript’s actual content and developmental stage.
- Should a review’s quality be measured by its length and structure, or by its relevance to the manuscript at that stage?
- How can journals ensure that review expectations are aligned with manuscript maturity?
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) recommends transparency, fairness, and constructive feedback in peer review. Clear guidelines for reviewers, indicating which elements are essential and which are optional, can reduce ambiguity and improve alignment.
The Role of Manuscript History
One factor often overlooked is the submission history of a manuscript. Knowing whether a paper has undergone previous rounds of review or has been rejected and revised elsewhere could help reviewers calibrate their efforts.
For example, a pre-polished manuscript may require subtle editorial guidance rather than extensive criticism. Early-stage submissions may benefit from detailed feedback on methodology, statistical analysis, or theoretical framing.
Transparency about prior submissions can also expedite the review process. This allows reviewers to focus on remaining gaps rather than revisiting issues already resolved.
Practical Takeaways for Reviewers
From my experience, several practical lessons emerge for reviewers navigating the tension between length and substance:
- Focus on relevance over volume: Not all manuscripts need long reviews. Highlight the key areas that genuinely require attention.
- Document constructive suggestions clearly: Even brief reviews can provide actionable guidance for authors.
- Consider manuscript maturity: Recognize that some papers are already well-developed, especially those that have circulated widely before submission.
- Communicate with editors: If a manuscript seems exceptionally polished, note this in your review. It contextualizes your recommendations.
- Reference best practices: Resources like COPE’s ethical guidelines and journals’ reviewer instructions are essential references.
Implications for Editorial Policy
For editorial teams, this case underscores the need to rethink rigid review expectations. Rather than emphasizing word counts or exhaustive checklists, journals could:Provide flexible guidance tailored to manuscript development stages.Highlight core evaluation criteria (relevance, originality, robustness, clarity) while leaving room for reviewer discretion.Encourage transparency about previous submissions and revisions when ethically permissible.By focusing on substance over form, editorial practices can foster a more efficient and constructive peer-review ecosystem.
Rethinking Review Quality
Effective peer review depends on alignment between reviewer efforts and the manuscript’s actual needs. Lengthy criticism is not inherently better. What matters is proportional, relevant, and substantive feedback that helps authors improve their work and editors make informed decisions.
High-quality reviews should:
- Reflect the manuscript’s developmental stage
- Provide actionable and constructive guidance
- Uphold ethical standards and transparency
When reviewers, editors, and authors share a common understanding of expectations, the peer-review process becomes more efficient, fair, and meaningful for all stakeholders.
Keywords
Peer Review Editorial Practices Review Quality Publication Ethics COPE Principles Reviewer Guidelines Manuscript Development Scholarly Publishing
Herbert Kimura is a Full Professor of the School of Management at the University of Brasilia in Brazil. He is an expert in financial risk management and innovation management. Dr. Kimura is the Editor-in-Chief of the Contemporary Business Journal (RAC) from the Brazilian Academy of Management Association (ANPAD). He is author of textbooks in management and finance, academic papers in the fields of finance and innovation. He served also as coordinator of the Science Park initiative and the Incubator program at the University of Brasilia. Dr. Kimura holds a BS in Electronics Engineering from the Aeronautics Institute of Technology (ITA), a MS and a PhD degrees from the University of Sao Paulo (USP) and PhD degrees in Business and Management from the University of Sao Paulo and from the Getulio Vargas Foundation (FGV).
View All Posts by Herbert KimuraDisclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of their affiliated institutions, the Asian Council of Science Editors (ACSE), or the Editor’s Café editorial team.
Leave a Comment
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Hin Lyhour
16 February, 2026The topic is very insightful, reminding general researchers who take reviewer roles about necessary information needed in advance before doing the review. This can lead to clear and right feedback on any manuscript submitted for publication. I will apply some of these takeaways to my current work and share them with my colleagues to ensure high-quality reviewing tasks.