Reviewer FAQ

Joint authorship requires advance permission from the Buros Center. The invited author retains full responsibility for the content and quality of the review and must be first author. Undergraduate students may not serve as co-authors. Only one Mental Measurements Yearbook is provided to joint authors. Only sole authors may request APA continuing education or NASP continuing professional development credit for reviews.

Test manuals are copyrighted works. Therefore, when words from a test manual are incorporated in a test review, proper credit must be given. Specifically, text taken from test manuals or other sources must be presented using quotation marks and providing page numbers. Test reviews typically contain no more than two short quotations; many excellent reviews use no quotations from their respective test manuals. For further information, please refer to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 7th edition (2019), Section 1.17 Implications of Plagiarism and Self-Plagiarism, Section 8.2 Plagiarism, Section 8.3 Self-Plagiarism, Sections 8.23 and 8.24 (regarding Paraphrasing), and Sections 8.25-8.36 (regarding Quotations, including Section 8.29 Accuracy of Quotations).

We can accommodate modest overages, particularly for complex tests with considerable technical information or those that function as a battery of tests. Exceptionally long reviews may be edited by Buros or returned to the review author with a request to reduce the length.

The sections of a test review are described in the document Organization of Test Reviews for the Mental Measurements Yearbook Series (available at buros.org/organization-test-reviews-mental-measurements-yearbook-series). As noted in this document, the Commentary section is used to address strengths and weaknesses of a test, as well as the adequacy of the theoretical model supporting test use. Reviewers also may wish to summarize the impact of current research on the test's assumptions in this section. Consolidating evaluative statements in the Commentary section makes it easier for the reader to understand the reviewer's overall assessment of the test.

Bulleted lists create problems for database management and exporting. We do not use them in our publications. Please write your review in prose.

It is not a "requirement" to make positive statements in a test review. However, a balanced review addresses both strengths and weaknesses of a test because both types of information are helpful to prospective test users. As noted in the document Reviewer's Guide for the Mental Measurements Yearbook Series (available at buros.org/reviewers-guide-mental-measurements-yearbook-series), "reviews should be evaluative, giving credit where credit is due, and describing weaknesses with careful attention to their likely implications and effects."

Typically, test publishers send all relevant test materials and documentation to Buros for review purposes. Test manuals vary widely in the depth of information provided. Some tests offer a "test manual" that is labeled as a User's Guide or Manual for Administration and Scoring and may package technical information separately (e.g., as a Technical Manual). Reviewers faced with minimal technical information should check all the test materials for additional information and may wish to contact the test publisher directly to inquire about additional documentation that bears on the test's psychometric properties. Evidence from other sources may be identified through a search of empirical literature.

Reviews are written for the rank and file of test users, which includes professionals (e.g., psychologists, educators, speech-language pathologists, lawyers, business personnel, counselors) as well as graduate students and others seeking information about the existence and/or quality of tests to use for specific applications.

It is our policy to avoid disclosing actual test items in the test reviews published by the Buros Center. Doing so would jeopardize the security of the tests.

No. The Buros Center secures the exclusive copyright from each reviewer at the time an invitation to review is extended. Authors seeking to reprint any portion of an entry appearing in any of our reference works must secure permission to use this material (for further information, consult our webpage (buros.org/copyright-and-permissions).

No. Copyright protection extends to all works published by Buros and includes manuscripts that are in development, under review, or in press. Posting a work for public view for which you do not hold the copyright or have not secured permission from the copyright holder (in this case, Buros) infringes on that copyright. For further information consult the APA Publication Manual (6th ed.), Section 8.05 Publisher Policy Requirements (regarding transfer of copyright) and/or contact the U.S. Copyright Office (lcweb.loc.gov/copyright).

In addition to a potential copyright infraction, one must bear in mind that manuscripts undergo a rigorous review process at Buros that ensures accuracy and consistency of information presented in the review. As a result, the published version of a review differs, sometimes substantially, from the manuscript that was submitted initially.

Yes. Depending on where we are in our publication cycle and whether we have received a review from the other invited reviewer, you may hear from Buros in as little as two months. Unfortunately, there are a number of factors beyond our control that affect the timing of our feedback, which can extend to a year or, rarely, more.

Typically it is not necessary to return the test materials we sent you. However, materials from secure tests must be returned to the test publisher; we will provide you with instructions for doing so. On rare occasions when we have a limited number of copies of the test materials, we may ask you to return them so that we can archive them in our test library.

Reviews available through Test Reviews Online are the same as those published in a corresponding Mental Measurements Yearbook volume. Online reviews are offered for sale on a per-test-title basis, with most test titles having two reviews. Once a test has been revised, only the reviews of the most recently published version of the test are available for purchase from Test Reviews Online.

Mental Measurements Yearbooks are published approximately every three years. However, most completed reviews become available electronically prior to the publication of a printed volume. Specifically, we send updates to electronic subscription services (EBSCO and Ovid) every six months and we update our own online source for reviews (Test Reviews Online) as soon as reviews are finalized. Most tests are reviewed by two independent reviewers, whose reviews undergo several stages of editorial review together and then are uploaded or published as pairs.

New reviewers often are invited to review only one test. Experienced reviewers may be invited to review only one test when we find only one test that is a good match for their areas of expertise. Although test acquisition is ongoing, we try to avoid bottlenecks by finding appropriate reviewers soon after we receive the test materials.

Yes, you may accept one invitation and decline the other (although we much prefer that both invitations are accepted).

We count on receiving reviews steadily throughout the yearbook compilation process. Depending on where we are in the publication schedule, a brief extension (of two weeks or so) may be possible without too much disruption for us. However, please bear in mind that, because pairs of reviews go through the editorial process together, a delay from one reviewer often causes a delay for the other reviewer who was invited to review the test.

In selecting reviewers we consider many factors, including preferences and the "areas of expertise" that reviewers specify at the time of application, degree field, field of specialization, history of previous reviews (if any), quality of previous reviews (if any), absence of known or suspected conflicts of interest, and other information gleaned from university, professional, personal, and other websites.

Yes, it is possible. However, with the task being a circumscribed one that is well described in our descriptive materials and with examples easily at hand (buros.org/review-samples), an outright rejection is rare. You may be asked to revise the review and resubmit it, or you may be queried on some point(s) or asked to clarify a sentence or two prior to publication.

Reviewers are eligible to receive 2 hours of APA CE or NASP CPD credit per review after (a) responding to editors’ queries (if any) and/or approving edited proofs, and (b) completing a CE/CPD evaluation form within 14 days of approving proofs. Completion of the evaluation form notifies the Buros Center of a reviewer’s interest in receiving CE/CPD credit. Certificates will be sent via email on a quarterly basis (first business day of the month in March, June, September, and December) to reviewers who have completed these requirements in the previous quarter. If possible, certificates will be emailed before the end of the quarter. Reviewers may earn 2 CE/CPD credits for each test review they complete, provided they are the sole author of the review(s). Credit should be claimed as each review is completed.

At this time, the Buros Center is approved as a provider of continuing education for the American Psychological Association (APA) and continuing professional development for the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). Both APA and NASP primarily serve psychologists. The Buros Center for Testing continues to explore continuing education options for other professions and hopes to secure additional approvals as a provider. The program qualifies for 2 clock hours of continuing education/continuing professional development that may be acceptable to national/state/local licensing boards for other professions and professional organizations other than APA and NASP. We suggest that you save the program description and your certificate of completion and contact your own licensing board or professional organization regarding specific requirements for receiving credit.

You might start by consulting A Guide to Computer Adaptive Testing Systems that is available on our Assessment Literacy page, which provides an accessible overview of CAT. It includes a list of references that you also might choose to access to assure your knowledge base is adequate to address specific concerns about CAT as related to the development and design of the test you are reviewing. If you determine that you cannot adequately address these issues in your review, please contact us and we will work you to find a suitable replacement test, if necessary.