Writing Developmental Reviews: Video Interviews with Award Winning Reviewers
Interview with Craig Crossland
Interview with Jonathan Bundy
Interview with Wendy Smith
Interview with Jan Heide
From the Editor Essays on Reviewing
July 2015 Ballinger & Johnson - Your First Review
January 2015 Ragins - Developing Our Authors
Reviewer Guidelines
In order to provide high-quality feedback to authors, it is important that all AMR reviewers are aware of our
Mission Statement:
The mission of the Academy of Management Review
(AMR) is to publish new theoretical insights that advance
our understanding of management and organizations. AMR is
receptive to a variety of perspectives, including those seeking to
improve the effectiveness of, as well as those critical of,
management and organizations. Submissions to AMR must
extend theory in ways that permit the development of testable
knowledge-based claims. To do this, researchers can develop new
management and organization theory, significantly challenge or
clarify existing theory, synthesize recent advances and ideas into
fresh, if not entirely new theory, or initiate a search for new
theory by identifying and delineating a novel theoretical problem.
The contributions of AMR articles often are grounded
in "normal science disciplines" of economics, psychology,
sociology, or social psychology, as well as nontraditional
perspectives, such as the humanities. AMR publishes
novel, insightful and carefully crafted conceptual work that
challenges conventional wisdom concerning all aspects of
organizations and their roles in society.
Importance of the Review Process
AMR's reputation depends upon publishing the best
theoretical work available. Part of our ability to attract the best
work is by providing very high quality, developmental and timely
reviews.
Timeliness of Reviews
It is critical that when invited to review for AMR, you
not only respond quickly to our invitation but that you complete it
on time. We ask that you respond to the invitation to review within
7 days of the invitation and to complete the full review within 30
days. Put yourself in the position of the authors. Waiting for
feedback on your work can be a very anxious time. If even one
reviewer of three is late, all the hard work of the other two
reviewers is jeopardized, as is the AMR reputation.
If you cannot complete your review within the deadline, please
contact the AMR office. We will grant extensions to
the deadline on an as needed basis. Therefore, if you only need a
few more days or week to complete a review please request an
extension. We encourage you to complete the review because finding
additional reviewers compromises the review turnaround time and
adds to author anxiety. However, if you cannot do the review meet
the deadline (even with an extension), please let us know so that
we may find a replacement reviewer and not hold up feedback to the
author(s).
Quality of Reviews
Returning your review on time is only part of the equation. The
most important element of your review is the quality of your
comments to the author. Remember, you are writing to a real person
about his/her work, to which s/he has devoted a good deal of time
and effort. Try to take the author's perspective and put yourself
in his/her shoes. Remember, your review not only helps authors
realize the potential of a particular manuscript, but also builds
their capacity for future work.
Tips for Developmental Reviewing*
Instead of focusing only on shortcomings, the developmental
reviewer takes the role of an informed reader who encourages
authors and helps them take their work to the next level. The
reviewer moves from the role of critical gatekeeper to
colleague.
Imagine having a face-to-face conversation with the
author. Picture the author as a colleague who asked you to
review her paper. You would point out the paper's shortcomings but
would also take the next step in providing ideas for how she could
address them as she moves forward with her work. You would try to
find the hidden gems in her work, even if they are buried in the
manuscript. You would listen to her and try to understand her
perspective, even if you hold different views or approaches.
Instead of giving advice, you may pose questions that help her
develop her ideas and recognize potential boundary conditions or
assumptions in her work.
What Developmental Reviewing Is (and Isn't)
Is not:
saying only positive things about a paper, ignoring flaws or
lowering standards.
giving a long list of criticisms sandwiched between token
positive statements at the beginning and end of the review.
ghostwriting, taking over the author's voice, or telling them
what to do.
Is:
identifying shortcomings but also offering constructive suggestions
on how to address them.
helping authors find the "diamonds" in their work.
listening to authors and trying to understand their
perspective.
treating authors as colleagues and peers, not junior
apprentices.
(*From: Ragins, 2015. Developing our Authors. Access to this
essay and information on how to become a developmental reviewer can
be found here:
Development Reviewing Resource.)
Other Reviewing Tips
Be specific and number your points. Only
with specificity will authors be able to recognize and potentially
overcome the weaknesses you see. Numbering your comments and
providing some indication of how significant each comment is in
relation to the others is helpful for both the action editor and
the authors. It helps to list your core concerns first in your
review.
Remember, you're not asked to be a copy
editor. Many of the authors submitting to
AMR are nonnative English speakers. From time to time
you may get a manuscript that has room for improvement in writing
style, grammar, etc. Try to differentiate between the quality of
the ideas and the quality of the writing. Your role is to make
suggestions where needed to improve the quality of writing, not to
correct each and every typo. Stay focused on the big picture (the
ideas).
Help point the authors in the direction of other
relevant work. If you believe there is other work the
authors will find helpful to substantiate the manuscript, please
provide that direction in your review. You need not provide a full
reference (although authors will appreciate it if you do), but
please provide author names and year of publication. It is not
enough to say there is work the authors need to consider, for
example, without providing some examples. This is particularly
important when referring authors to work outside management for
consideration. Be consistent. One of the worst things a reviewer
can do is pile praise upon the authors and then recommend the
action editor reject the manuscript. Your message to the authors
and editor need to be consistent, but… never include your editorial
suggestion in the review. AMR's Associate Editors are
independent decision makers and not vote counters. Recognize that
while you may believe there is a clear decision about a manuscript
other reviewers and the editor may disagree. It is the Action
Editor's responsibility to make the editorial decision on each
manuscript. If you doubt your ability to provide a review without
bias, please contact us to discuss the invitation to review.
Reviewers should never share or discuss a paper they are reviewing
with anyone other than the action editor.
Helpful Hints for Reviewing for AMR:
- Please use the PDF copy of the
manuscript to complete your review. To access it,
click on your "Reviewer Center" link and then click on the "View
Details" button. Click on the PDF icon to download a copy of the
manuscript.
- Under Comments to the Author, paste or write your review into
the Comments for Authors text box.
- Does the paper create, extend or advance management theory in a
significant way?
- Is the topic important and interesting? Does the manuscript
pass the "so what" test?
- Are the central constructs defined clearly? Are the underlying
causal mechanisms behind proposed relationships explained
clearly?
- Are underlying assumptions clearly recognized and
discussed?
- Does the manuscript contain a well-developed and articulated
theoretical framework?
- Do the propositions (if applicable) logically flow from the
theory?
- Is relevant literature cited accurately? If relevant literature
is missing, can you point the authors toward that literature?
- Does the paper have clear implications for future
research?
Is the paper's contribution commensurate with its length?