Thread by @DanielGucciardi

Brief thread on my reflections as a peer-reviewer that I hope will be useful for others. These reflections are based on ~10 years as an AE, Section Editor, or EB member for several journals in sport science or S&E psych & ad hoc reviewer for many others 1/n

I also share these reflections as errors I've made in my own work, so many of the suggestions are approaches or readings that I've personally found useful in rectifying these issues. I welcome contributions from others (much more qualified than me) on their useful resources 2/n

Never underestimate the importance of your lit review; it's impossible to assess your contribution(s) in the absence of sufficient info on the conceptual & empirical context. This @AOMConnect editorial on 'setting the hook' is an excellent compass (journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/am…) 3/n

One may have an excellent idea, data, etc yet the writing quality may do it an injustice. This blog on paragraph structure by @Write4Research is essential reading for all writers (medium.com/advice-and-hel…). I now use it to create paper skeletons & write the nuts & bolts 4/n

Define key concepts because they have important implications for evaluations of the relevance & quality of your operationalisations & interpretations of the data. See this paper for excellent guidelines on high-quality concept definitions (doi.org/10.1177%2F1094…) 5/n

I appreciate word or page restrictions imposed by journals (solution=osf.io), though often it's impossible to evaluate research methods fully because the detail is insufficient. There exist reporting guidelines (equator-network.org) for numerous designs 6/n

How systematic reviewers assess study quality can inform our planning efforts when designing new studies. This preprint by @Jeff_Z_Wang (osf.io/preprints/meta…) and associated online table (public.tableau.com/app/profile/nt…) is super helpful 7/n

Locate contemporary guidelines for the methods or methodology you plan to use & apply them from project inception to execution (eg, meta-analysis -> link.springer.com/article/10.105…). Keep an eye out for an upcoming special issue in International Review of Sport & Exercise Psychology 8/n

For empirical studies, always justify your sample size. This pre-print (psyarxiv.com/9d3yf/) by @lakens is an amazing resource! 9/n

If time is relevant to your concepts & methods then provide an explicit justification for its application in your work. @HermanAguinis provides an outstanding taxonomy of 4 distinct elements - duration, frequency, timing, and sequence (hermanaguinis.com/HRMRtime.pdf) 10/n

I often read the argument “this question or approach” has not been done before as justification for a study. As @AndyLane27 noted in an excellent editorial, there may be good reason for why there has not been any work on the topic (eg, meaningless; doi.org/10.1080/026404…) 11/n