Peer review is a critical component toward facilitating a robust science in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Peer review exists beyond academic publishing in organizations, university departments, grant agencies, classrooms, and many more work contexts. Reviewers are responsible for judging the quality of research conducted and submitted for evaluation. Furthermore, they are responsible for treating authors and their work with respect, in a supportive and developmental manner. Given its central role in our profession, it is curious that we do not have formalized review guidelines or standards and that most of us never receive formal training in peer reviewing. To support this endeavor, we are proposing a competency framework for peer review. The purpose of the competency framework is to provide a definition of excellent peer reviewing and guidelines to reviewers for which types of behaviors will lead to good peer reviews. By defining these competencies, we create clarity around expectations for peer review, standards for good peer reviews, and opportunities for training the behaviors required to deliver good peer reviews. We further discuss how the competency framework can be used to improve peer reviewing and suggest additional steps forward that involve suggestions for how stakeholders can get involved in fostering high-quality peer reviewing.

Viewing production-line workers from a historical standpoint, the attention on manufacturing in the 19th and into the 20th centuries was on production (Fifelski, 2014) and production-oriented leadership style, in contrast to employee-oriented leadership style (Likert, 1961; see also Kosicek, Soni, Sandbothe, & Slack, 2012). Around the turn of the 20th century, changes took place, and it appears as if two different approaches were taken in manufacturing environments: research–practitioner-based leadership approaches and management-based leadership approaches; the latter approach is less a leadership style and more a social management philosophy em+phasizing business operation (Vitolla, Rubino, & Garzoni, 2017). This review should bring awareness that industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists once took on the lead to major successes that arose from work in manufacturing companies; however, today there is hardly any contribution by I-O psychologists to the manufacturing sector.

This practice forum explores how the “quantified self movement” can contribute to developing leaders by offering new approaches to assessment and feedback. Often associated with wearable technologies (digital technologies worn on the body), self-tracking sensors and feedback systems help individuals assess how they interface with the world, automatically capturing and monitoring data for learning, growth, and change. The authors make the case that such tools can create ongoing opportunities for learning intrapersonal qualities relevant to leadership. In particular, they offer insights about using self-tracking to manage responses to stress and fatigue and for the delivery of verbal presentations. The exploration also notes concerns about the use of technological devices for development purposes. The authors conclude by offering a summary of six factors to consider before using self-tracking tools for leadership development, and by identifying four aspects of self-tracking approaches that would benefit from more I-O psychologist involvement.