Qualities of a good reviewer

Huyen Bui, Dallas Dunlap, Thomas Hearon, Donald Herron, Chaoli Lan, Shu Jiang, Kurt Marfurt, Balazs Nemeth, Osareni Ogiesoba, Gerard T. Schuster, Hongliu Zeng

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations


Interpretation shares commonalities with Geophysics and the AAPG Bulletin in that it is a peer-reviewed journal. Unlike Geophysics and the AAPG Bulletin, Interpretation is built around special sections headed by a team of special-section editors who are either experts or particularly interested in the focused area. In addition to constructing a Call for Papers announcing their special section, the special-section editors also will solicit papers from colleagues, competitors, technology suppliers, and others that they believe may have contributions of interest to the Interpretation readership community. Submitted papers then are assigned by the special editors to three or more reviewers, many of whom are contributors to (and hence expert in) the same special-section topic. By design, the special section-structure of Interpretation reaches authors, editors, and reviewers who previously may not have been involved in the peer-review process. Recognizing this fact, in this article the standing editorial board attempts to summarize some of the more important qualities of what we find to be a good reviewer.
Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1A-3A
Number of pages3
Issue number3
StatePublished - Jul 22 2017


Dive into the research topics of 'Qualities of a good reviewer'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this