Creating a culture: Reviewing expectations in EJISDC.

Scholarly endeavors are nothing other than community undertakings, in which authors, reviewers, editors and readers participate. If a reviewer first recommends major revisions, then refuses to evaluate the revised manuscript, the SE has the difficult task of finding a new reviewer mid-way through the review process, which is in addition potentially unfair to the authors. Whether reviewers read these guidelines is moot, but we have just edited the email templates that we use when inviting reviewers to include specific links to these guidelines in the hope that they will at least glance at them and so be a little more informed about our expectations for reviews. In this case, the two recent articles, which I have anonymised to A and B, were actually authored by the reviewer, so this looks like a situation (see Tarafdar & Davison, 2020) where the reviewer is asking for more cites to his or her own work. [Extracted from the article]