882508

research-article2019
JMIXXX10.1177/1056492619882508Journal of Management InquiryVogelgesang Lester

Dialog

Journal of Management Inquiry

R & R Dialog: Congratulations, You

1­–7
© The Author(s) 2019
Reprintsreuse
Article and permissions:
guidelines:
Got a Revise and Resubmit! Now What? sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1056492619882508
https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492619882508

The Impetus Behind and Lessons jmi.sagepub.com

journals.sagepub.com/home/jmi

Learned from a Successful Years-long

PDW Focused on the Peer Review
Revision Process

Gretchen Vogelgesang Lester1

Abstract
For all the experiences researchers have with the publication process, questions continue to arise about how to best
navigate the revise and resubmit gauntlet. This dialog captures insight from six years of Academy of Management professional
development workshops, an action editor’s perspective on the process, and a qualitative exploration of revision derailers—
topics focused on understanding and improving the predictability of the revise and resubmit process. In doing so, this dialog
serves as a resource for new and accomplished scholars, reviewers, and editors to refocus the revision process on creating
and disseminating knowledge throughout business-related fields. The three articles in this dialog first summarize the planning
and execution of six professional development workshops (PDWs), the process from the perspective of an action editor,
and a content analysis of rejections after an R&R, in order to highlight best practices authors can take to increase success
throughout this process

Keywords
careers, mentoring, management education

Introduction advance a manuscript towards publication, and to offer sug-

“Publish or perish.” This adage is one of the earliest phrases
doctoral students learn when entering the world of academic
publishing. Exploring scientific questions and generating
unique contributions is a challenge for scholars; such accom-
plishments rest largely on the ability to create and dissemi-
nate knowledge through the peer-review process (Ashford,
2013). Setting aside the other weighted aspects of academic
life—teaching ability, university service, collegiality, and
professional conduct—few arguments can be made against
the notion that publishing and showing subsequent scholarly
impact is necessary for tenure and promotion (Aguinis,
Shapiro, Antonacopoulou, & Cummings, 2014; Bedeian,
Van Fleet, & Hyman, 2009; Day, 2011; de Rond & Miller,
2005). The peer review process at its best ensures authors are
not only creating knowledge but are also engendering sup-
port for their findings by persuading reviewers of the impor-
tance of such knowledge (Starbuck, 2003).
The purpose of this dialog is to communicate the conver-
sations and expert advice indicative of the PDW sessions to
a larger audience, to synthesize the available material on the
revision process to create a primer for authors working to
gestions for how authors, reviewers, and editors can best take
advantage of the opportunity to create and disseminate
knowledge through the revision process. This dialog’s con-
tribution is to serve as a resource for management scholars at
every career stage, while being particularly useful for doc-
toral students and early career researchers just starting to
develop a research portfolio (Bedeian, 1996; de Rond &
Miller, 2005; Stackman, 2017).
The Inaugural PDW Dedicated to the
R&R Process
As a doctoral student, along with the mentorship I received
from my advisors, I read articles on writing (de Rond &
Miller, 2005; Ragins, 2012), signed up to review manuscripts
1
San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Gretchen Vogelgesang Lester, San Jose State University, 1 Washington
Square, San Jose, CA 95192, USA.
Email: Gretchen.lester@sjsu.edu
2 Journal of Management Inquiry 00(0)
for conferences and journals as advised by leaders in the field
(Trevino, 2008), and attended conference sessions on becom-
ing a better reviewer. I also heard stories and read editorials
and articles pointing out the flaws of the peer review process
(Ashford, 2013; Bedeian, 2003; Clair, 2015; Day, 2011;
Hannah, Meyer, & Seidel, 2017; Miller, 2006; Stackman,
2017; Starbuck, 2003). I received rejections, absorbed cri-
tiques, and then received my first revise and resubmit. I asked
for advice from my mentors and colleagues, but the range and
variety of responses sparked more questions than answers
about the process. In my pursuit to learn as much as possible
about the best ways to approach this process, I enlisted the
help of a few colleagues and submitted an idea for a PDW
focused solely on the revise and resubmit process in 2012.
The response, a standing-room-only session, emphasized the
desire for other scholars to learn more about this process. For
six years, we have continued to draw large crowds of those
interested in highlighting their contributions in the face of
critical reviews and avoiding common challenges that may
derail a manuscript’s progress towards publication.
In preparing for that first and now subsequent PDWs, I
collected editorials and articles that discuss writing, revising,
and reviewing academic research. Of the 51 publications
included in Table 1, the revise and resubmit process is repre-
sented only by four articles that discuss responding to
reviewers, the value of reviews, and ideas for streamlining
the revision process. In addition, there are two sets of retro-
spective articles that dissect a manuscript’s journey through
the peer review process, one set from The Academy of
Management Journal in 2006, and another set published in
2017 in the Journal of Management Inquiry. I realized that
although it is a large part of one’s academic career, the ability
to “sell” one’s work through the revision process is a distinct
capability that rarely gets its own focus.
The “Congratulations, you got a revise and resubmit! Now
what?” sessions include 5–6 current or former action and asso-
ciate editors (AEs) from well-regarded journals in the man-
agement field sharing advice and answering questions from
the audience. The title invokes both the excitement and the
bewilderment scholars oftentimes feel upon receiving an invi-
tation to continue to revise a manuscript. The audience typi-
cally includes doctoral students, junior faculty, and mid-career
scholars who contribute thoughtful and thought-provoking
questions. In our 2018 session, we polled the audience—about
40% were doctoral students or post-docs, 30% assistant pro-
fessors, and 30% associate and full professors. This composi-
tion may seem surprising, but since each separate manuscript
submission creates its own unique revise and resubmit pro-
cess, perhaps it makes sense that the revise and resubmit pro-
cess is of interest to scholars at all career stages.
The audience feedback each year notes that the session is
different from others for a number of reasons: (a) it is not
limited to one specific journal as the popular “meet the edi-
tors” sessions at AOM are; (b) it is only focused on the
revision process and does not include general approaches to
the publishing as the doctoral consortia often cover; and (c)
it is multi-disciplinary and promoted across management
disciplines, which stands alone from the sessions organized
by the different Academy divisions. One main conclusion
from the popularity of these sessions is that even with doc-
toral training and mentorship along with a continued focus
from the Academy on the practice of publication, a different
process starts with the revision invitation, and there is little
consistent advice on its navigation. Beyond the few editori-
als noted earlier and the aforementioned academy sessions, it
would seem that much of the revise and resubmit process is
at best learned vicariously through mentor/mentee relation-
ships, and at worst learned through trial and error.
The successful completion of the revision process requires
putting forth the same rigor and energy (and attention to
detail, as noted by Gardner, forthcoming, this Dialog) that
drives the beginning of a project. The consistent advice from
panelists over the years suggests that by using a systematic
approach, authors may be more likely to focus activity on the
revision and receive positive outcomes from efforts to shep-
herd a manuscript through the process. A collection of “Do’s
and Don’ts” are presented in Table 2.
After six years of PDWs, we have learned that both nov-
ice and more experienced authors have unanswered ques-
tions about the revision process and are interested in learning
how to successfully shepherd manuscripts toward accep-
tance. We have included the most common themes and their
solutions below.
Common Dilemmas for Authors
Dilemma 1: Conflicting Reviews
“I received conflicting reviews.” “One reviewer hated it, the
others were more positive–how do I reconcile this?” “One
reviewer asked for major revisions but was fairly negative, the
others asked for minor revisions and were more positive–whose
comments do I address?”
Every year, many versions of this question are posed to the
panelists. Before responding, the panelists point out, as noted
earlier, that reviewers are chosen from a broad pool of schol-
ars by the editor or AE. Some AE’s specifically identify
reviewers with competing perspectives to gain broader
insight into the manuscript, its theories, its methods, and its
findings (Trevino, 2008). Data on studies going back decades
show that inter-rater reliability of reviewers during the
review process is fairly low (Bowen, Perloff, & Jacoby,
1972; Day, 2011; Starbuck, 2003); therefore, instead of being
caught off guard by conflicting reviews, scholars should
anticipate and prepare for this disharmony. A general under-
standing of who the reviewers are and that they are often
chosen specifically because of different perspectives is a
point to consider when evaluating the comments.
Vogelgesang Lester 3

Table 1. Publications Focused on the Peer Review Process and Manuscript Publication.

Focus Authors Date

1 Commentary Ashkanasy, N. M. 2010
2 Ashkanasy, N. M. 2012
3 Bedeian, A.G. 1996
4 Bedeian, A. G., Van Fleet, D. D., & Hyman III, H. H. 2009
5 de Rond, M. & Miller, A. N. 2005
6 George, G. 2014
7 Hitt, M. A. 2009
8 Rupp, D. E. 2011
9 Trevino, L. K. 2008
10 Tsui, A. S. & Hollenbeck, J. R. 2009
11 Developmental peer review Ballinger, G. A. & Johnson, R. E. 2015
12 Brown, K. G. 2012
13 Caligiuri, P. & Thomas, D. C. 2013
14 Carpenter, M. A. 2009
15 Hannah, D. R., Meyer, A., & Seidel, M-D. L. 2017
16 Hempel, P.S. 2014
17 Lepak, D. 2009
18 Ragins, B. R. 2015
19 Ragins, B. R. 2017a
20 Ragins, B. R. 2017b
21 Stackman, R.W. 2017
22 Emotional response to rejection Day, N. E. 2011
23 Ideation Ashford, S. 2013
24 Rupp, D. E., Thornton, M. A., Rogelberg, S. G., Olien, J. 2014
L., & Berka, G.
25 Schaubroeck, J. 2007
26 Wright, P. M. 2015
27 Wright, T. A. 2013
28 Manuscript evaluation Arbaugh, J. B. 2009
29 Clair, J. A. 2015
30 Colquitt, J. A.& Ireland, R. D. 2009
31 Kilduff, M. 2007
32 Peer review process Bedeian, A.G. 2003
33 Beyer, J. M., Chanove, R. G., & Fox, W. B. 1995
34 Lewin, A.Y. 2014
35 Miller, C. C. & Van de Ven, A. H. 2015
36 Raelin, J. A. 2008
37 Research integrity Colquitt, J. A. 2013
38 Wright, P. M. 2016
39 Retrospective evaluation of Agarwal, R., Echambadi, R., Franco, A. M., & Sarkar, MB 2006
40 revise and resubmit Bergh, D. D. 2006
41 Faems, D., & Hannah, D.R. 2017
42 Rynes, S. L. 2006a
43 Rynes, S. L. 2006b
44 Seibert, S. E. 2006
45 Revise and resubmit process Liu, L.A. 2014
46 Rynes, S. L. 2006c
47 Shaw, J. D. 2012
48 Starbuck, W.H. 2003
49 Scholarly writing Mayer, K. J. & Sparrowe, R. T. 2013
50 Pollock, T. G., & Bono, J. E. 2013
51 Ragins, B. R. 2012
4 Journal of Management Inquiry 00(0)

Table 2. Do’s and Don’ts During the Revision Process.

Anticipating the • Prepare for typical emotional responses to criticism prior to receiving the peer reviews (Day, 2011).
results • Understand predisposition to criticism and rejection sensitivity (Butler, Doherty & Potter, 2007).
• Be candid regarding the slim chances of receiving a revise and resubmit.
Allocate time for • Celebrate success when R&R is received, but also set deadline to return to reviewing comments.
the critiques • Keep momentum by setting short-term goals (e.g., digest comments within one week) (see actively revising
further)
• Digest overall comments, reread editor’s letter and reviewers’ comments, identify non-negotiables (Rynes,
2006b).
• Determine most positive and most challenging reviewer(s).
• Envision reviewers as coaches or mentors (Carpenter, 2009).
• Approach comments as dispute resolution to create a better final product (Liu, 2014).
Appraising the • Organize comments around similar themes: “Chunking” (theory; data collection; different analyses);
comments Categorizing (strategic, tactical, minor); Ranking (critical, contestable or arguable, threatening).
• Review original manuscript ideas and remain open to replacement (Faems & Hannah, 2017).
Archiving changes • Catalog changes. Keep a log or syntax in a separate document detailing the major revisions on each draft.
• Track changes allows authors to collaborate and revise work quickly, but at the risk of version control
(Agarwal, Echambi, Franco, & Sarkar, 2006).
Actively revising • Break up the terminal goal (e.g., returning an excellent revision to the journal within the designated time
frame) into smaller, attainable goals (e.g., collecting additional data within 6 weeks) (Locke & Latham, 2002).
• Tie goals (with time estimates) to specific milestones to move the paper forward; measure and track progress.
• Use project planning tools (spreadsheet/table or more robust software-based project planning tools1).
• Note AE terms and editorial board cycles.
Special • Identify a champion responsible for the paper.
considerations • Determine task ownership.
for author teams • Set a standard meeting to touch base with the author team (Rupp, Thornton, Rogelberg, Olien, & Berka, 2014).
Preparing the • Remind the AE and reviewers which theories and concepts have been added and discarded.
response letter • Avoid a muddled response letter (Bergh, 2006).
Attending to final • Conduct a final reading of the comments; after a few months of reflection, comments initially deemed minor
details may now seem critical.
• Proofread! A manuscript that has already been through one review should have no typos or errors; glaring
mistakes at this point can serve as an easy reason for rejection (see Gardner, this issue).
• Every author on the team should be especially familiar with any new analyses, changes made to results, and the
integrity of the data for empirical papers (see Budd, 2015; Nuijten, Hartgerink, Assen, Epskamp, & Wicherts,
2015 for extensive reviews on recent retractions and misreporting of statistics).
• Ensure the manuscript has a singular voice.
Assessment by a • Provide friendly reviewers with a polished revision, the reviewers’ initial comments, and your letter to the
friendly reviewer editor and reviewers (Colquitt & Ireland, 2009).
Final review of the • Review your time estimations, your records log, and the project plan and compare with the actual steps taken.
process • Detail the length of time spent on emotional reactions (if any), ruminating on the reviewers’ comments, and
preparing to work on the revision.

Going further, the AE is the only person with an overall
understanding of the reviewers’ skill sets and of the authors’
manuscript; thus, it is prudent to use the editor’s comments
as a starting point in reconciling conflicting comments
(Bliese, forthcoming; Rynes, 2006b). Often, reviews will be
split, with one reviewer finding positive aspects of the work
and the other(s) taking a more critical stance. When faced
with such conflicting guidance, the author has three impor-
tant goals to meet. First, authors should aim to reinforce the
positive responses received from any reviewer. Second,
authors should respectfully respond to the more critical
reviewer(s). Third, authors should set forth a strategy to win
over the other reviewers and the AE (see Bliese, forthcom-
ing, in this Dialog for advice on how to enlist the AE’s assis-
tance) on publishing the manuscript. Final consensus
between reviewers is not necessary, but authors should
attempt to lessen any negativity regarding the work.
Sometimes, reviewers will have different philosophical or
epistemological approaches that will require deep thought
and analysis from the author(s). In such cases, the author(s)
must clearly lay out the case for the manuscript’s approach,
even if it is antithetical to a reviewer’s perspective.
Dilemma 2: “Risky Revision”
“I received a risky revise and resubmit. Should I just pull the
paper from consideration?”
When such questions come to the panelists, there is usually a
murmur from the audience, with many attendees echoing “I
Vogelgesang Lester
also received a risky revision.” It is important to note that the
PDW panelists serving as AEs see many “high risk” or
“risky” revisions, so those words are not necessarily meant
to dissuade an author from the revision process, but rather
highlight the amount of effort needed to move the paper to
conditional acceptance.
After reviewing the qualitative comments carefully,
authors must decide to accept (or not) the invitation to revise
and resubmit. In a study of 249 scholars from the United
States and the United Kingdom, Altman and Baruch (2008)
found that minor revisions would almost always continue
through the review process, whereas requests for major revi-
sions might lead to authors deciding to pull the paper from
consideration. Up to 30% of scholars in the study seriously
considered pulling the paper and submitting it to a different
journal based solely on the categorization of “high risk.” One
PDW panelist noted that about 50% of authors who accept
the revision invitation will achieve continued consideration;
a chance that becomes zero if the paper is pulled from the
journal. In short, do not let the words “high risk” or “risky
revision” be the sole reason for pulling a paper from consid-
eration. One final note on this point, all panelists note that if
an author does choose to pull a paper from review after
weighing the editor and reviewer comments, it is a profes-
sional courtesy to inform the AE.
Dilemma 3: Additional Data/New Analyses
“The reviewers and AE recommend an additional data
collection. Three months is not enough time. Should I just ignore
this comment?” “The reviewers request an additional analysis
that I do not know how to do. Should I just ignore this comment?”
Prior to a manuscript’s submission, an author could spend
years designing the study, researching different theories,
generating the literature review, analyzing data, and writing
the manuscript. After receiving a revise and resubmit, they
may need to turn the paper around in three to six months.
The revision period is a compressed time frame in which
the authors may need to rethink their entire approach.
However, the panelists unanimously and emphatically
agree that any additional data collection requests must be
addressed (see Gardner, forthcoming, as part of this Dialog
for his discussion of reasons why revisions get rejected).
After six iterations of the PDW, not a single panelist sug-
gested ignoring this reviewer comment, and most stated
that a resubmission without new data will most likely result
in a rejection. The inability to collect more data or run addi-
tional analyses may be a reason to pull the paper from con-
sideration. Time should not be a reason for pulling the
paper; even if collecting new data takes longer than the
time allowed for the revision, authors should ask for an
extension before withdrawing. In rare cases where the AE
cannot grant an extension and authors cannot meet the
deadline, pulling the paper and at least making an effort to
5
collect more data before the next journal submission will
increase the chances of acceptance. The same holds for
requests for additional analyses; if the reviewers ask for a
different analysis, the author(s) should make a good faith
effort to honor the request and report the findings in the
response to reviewers’ letter even if not included in the
revised manuscript.
Dilemma 4: Crafting a Response Letter
“How do I write a response letter?” “Should I copy and paste
entire sections from the manuscript into the response?” “Can I
change the order of the reviewer comments?”
The final common dilemma concerns the response to review-
ers’ letter. A question is often asked if authors should write
the revision first or start with the response to reviewers. One
helpful suggestion highlights cataloguing changes to the
revision in an archive while simultaneously including the
changes as part of the response letter. This recursive process,
where changes in the manuscript address reviewers’ com-
ments, and reviewers’ comments direct the changes in the
manuscript, allow the two documents to work together.
It is not necessary, and may even be considered prob-
lematic, for an author to cut and paste entire sections from
the manuscript into the response letter (see Gardner, forth-
coming, as part of this Dialog for actions to avoid when
crafting the response). Repeatedly, panelists have noted it is
more helpful to all the reviewers to organize the response
so each reviewer can see the others’ perspectives and the
author response at the same time. Finally, the letter is the
only place where the author has an opportunity to explain
why certain changes were made/not made, and as Liu
(2014) notes, it might even allow for authors to allow out-
side experts or “witnesses” to give credence to why the
author made certain choices by citing sources that may not
be included in the final manuscript.
Conclusion
In conclusion, authors should anticipate conflicting
reviews and feel confident in their choices during a
reviewer comment reconciliation process. Authors must
also choose whether or not to move forward with risky
revisions, and should place more emphasis on the qualita-
tive comments than the overall categorization of a paper as
“risky”. Requests for additional data collection or analyses
should be heeded. Finally, the response letter should be
seen as a critical and consistent part of the revision pro-
cess, capturing the authors’ forward progress on the manu-
script and serving as a touchstone to the initial reason for
the manuscript’s existence.
Those who successfully navigate these challenges often
note the publication of an improved manuscript from the
6 Journal of Management Inquiry 00(0)
initial submission, which is the end goal of the peer review
process. Hopefully, authors will receive a positive response
to revision efforts on the revised manuscript (see Gardner,
forthcoming, as part of this Dialog for a qualitative explora-
tion of rejections). If so, the manuscript will most likely
receive additional reviewer comments before a conditional
acceptance (note, Faems & Hannah, 2017, advise authors
that manuscripts may still be rejected if those conditions are
not met). Alternatively, even a persuasive argument con-
tained in the response to reviewers and an improved manu-
script could require additional major revisions—at this point,
the AE may be even more directive with the recommended
changes (Faems & Hannah, 2017). Subsequently, the revi-
sion process begins again—working towards a third-round
resubmission.
The purpose of this paper is to serve as a comprehensive
source for authors in the management field based upon
knowledge disseminated at Academy of Management pro-
fessional development workshops as well as to synthesize
editorial material to help further illuminate revision process.
Understanding the review generation process allows authors
to anticipate conflicting reviews, read into the true meaning
of a “risky” revise and resubmit, allow proper regard for sug-
gestions regarding new data collection or new analyses, and
highlight the role of preparation in the revision process.
Receiving negative reviews and outcomes is a part of aca-
demic life—even the expert panelists noted receiving unde-
sirable reviews from time to time. Acceptance of this process
as a critical path to creating knowledge may decrease the
emotional labor experienced when receiving critical reviews.
The best advice from the panelists includes the persistence of
not giving up on an idea and knowing when to defend certain
choices and when to defer to peer reviewers to allow for the
creation of an even better product.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Gretchen Vogelgesang Lester https://orcid.org/0000-0003
-4423-416X
Note
1. This manuscript does not seek to endorse any particular proj-
ect planning software, but there are both free and commer-
cial tools available. A few of the popular free tools as of this
writing include Taiga.io, 2-Plan, Gantt Project, and Wrike.
The most popular commercial project planning software is
Microsoft Project.
References
*Only included in Table 1. ** Only included in Table 2. † Included
in Tables 1 and 2.
†Agarwal, R., Echambadi, R., Franco, A. M., & Sarkar, M. B.
(2006). Reap rewards: Maximizing benefits from reviewer
comments. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 191.
Aguinis, H., Shapiro, D. L., Antonacopoulou, E. P., & Cummings,
T. G. (2014). Scholarly impact: A pluralist conceptualization.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13, 623-639.
Altman, Y., & Baruch, Y. (2008). Strategies for revising and
resubmitting papers to refereed journals. British Journal of
Management, 19, 89-101.
*Arbaugh, J. B. (2009). From the editors raising the veil: Insights
into AMLE’s review process. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 8(4), 479-482.
Ashford, S. J. (2013). Having scholarly impact: The art of hitting
academic home runs. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 12(4), 623-633.
*Ashkanasy, N. M. (2010). Publishing today is more difficult than
ever. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(1), 1-3.
*Ashkanasy, N. M. (2012). What do JOB’s authors and readers
really think? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(5), 595-
596.
*Ballinger, G. A., & Johnson, R. E. (2015). Editors’ comments:
Your first AMR review. Academy of Management Review, 40,
315-322.
Bedeian, A. G. (1996). Thoughts on the making and remaking of
the management discipline. Journal of Management Inquiry,
5(4), 311-318.
Bedeian, A. G. (2003). The manuscript review process: The proper
roles of authors, referees, and editors. Journal of Management
Inquiry, 12, 331-338.
Bedeian, A. G., Van Fleet, D. D., & Hyman III, H. H. (2009).
Scientific achievement and editorial board membership.
Organizational Research Methods, 12, 211-238.
†Bergh, D. D. (2006). Editing the 2004 AMJ best article award win-
ner. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 197-202.
*Beyer, J. M., Chanove, R. G., & Fox, W. B. (1995). The review
process and the fates of manuscripts submitted to AMJ.
Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1219-1260.
Bliese, P. (forthcoming). R & R Dialog: Taking the AE’s perspec-
tive: Insights into seemingly irrational decisions. Journal of
Management Inquiry.
Bowen, D. D., Perloff, R., & Jacoby, J. (1972). Improving manu-
script evaluation procedures. American Psychologist, 27(3),
221-225.
*Brown, K. G. (2012). From the editors: Thoughts on effective
reviewing. Academy of Management Learning & Education,
11(2), 152-154.
**Budd, J. (2013). The Stapel case: An object lesson in research
integrity and its lapses. Synesis: A Journal of Science,
Technology, Ethics, and Policy, 4(1), G47-G53.
**Butler, J. C., Doherty, M. S., & Potter, R. M. (2007). Social ante-
cedents and consequences of interpersonal rejection sensitiv-
ity. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1376-1385.
*Caligiuri, P., & Thomas, D. C. (2013). From the editors: How to
write a high-quality review. Journal of International Business
Studies, 44, 547-553.
Vogelgesang Lester
†Carpenter, M. A. (2009). Editor’s comments: Mentoring col-
leagues in the craft and spirit of peer review. Academy of
Management Review, 34, 191-195.
Clair, J. A. (2015). Toward a bill of rights for manuscript submitters.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(1), 111-131.
*Colquitt, J. A. (2013). Data overlap policies at AMJ. Academy of
Management Journal, 56(2), 331-333.
†Colquitt, J. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2009). Taking the mystery out
of AMJ’s reviewer evaluation form. Academy of Management
Journal, 52(2), 224-228.
Day, N. E. (2011). The silent majority: Manuscript rejection and
its impact on scholars. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 10, 704-718.
De Rond, M., & Miller, A. N. (2005). Publish or perish: Bane or
boon of academic life?. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(4),
321-329.
Faems, D., & Hannah, D. R. (2017). A retrospective examination
of a successful developmental reviewing process. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 27(2). DOI: 1056492617726712.
Gardner, W. (forthcoming). R & R Dialog: Why I rejected your
R&R submission and what you could have done to secure an
acceptance. Journal of Management Inquiry.
*George, G. (2014). Rethinking management scholarship. Academy
of Management Journal, 57(1), 1-6.
Hannah, Meyer, & Seidel (2017). Escape from Abilene: The
Developmental Opportunity of the Review Process. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 27(20). DOI: 1056492617726270.
*Hempel, P. S. (2014). The developmental reviewer. Management
and Organization Review 10, 175-181.
*Hitt, M. A. (2009). Editorial judgments, quality scholarship,
and the Academy of Management’s journals. Academy of
Management, 52, 253-258.
*Kilduff, M. (2007). Editor’s comments: The top ten reasons
why your paper might not be sent out for review. Academy of
Management Review, 32, 700-702.
*Lepak, D. (2009). Editor’s comments: What is good reviewing?
Academy of Management Review, 34, 375-381.
*Lewin, A. Y. (2014). The peer-review process: The good, the bad,
the ugly, and the extraordinary. Management and Organization
Review, 10, 167-173.
Liu, L. A. (2014). Addressing reviewer comments as an integra-
tive negotiation. Management and Organization Review, 10,
183-190.
**Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically use-
ful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odys-
sey. American psychologist, 57, 705.
*Mayer, K. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2013). Integrating theories in AMJ
articles. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 917-922.
Miller, C. C. (2006). Peer review in the organizational and manage-
ment sciences: Prevalence and effects of reviewer hostility, bias,
and dissensus. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 425-431.
*Miller, C., & Van de Ven, A. (2015). Peer review, root canals,
and other amazing life events. Academy of Management
Discoveries, 1(2), 1-7.
**Nuijten, M. B., Hartgerink, C. H., Assen, M. A., Epskamp, S.,
& Wicherts, J. M. (2016). The prevalence of statistical report-
ing errors in psychology (1985–2013). Behavior Research
Methods, 48(4), 1205-1226
7
*Pollock, T. G., & Bono, J. E. (2013). Being Scheherazade: The
importance of storytelling in academic writing. Academy of
Management Journal, 56(3), 629-634.
*Raelin, J. A. (2008). Refereeing the game of peer review. Academy
of Management Learning & Education, 7, 124-129.
Ragins, B. R. (2012). Reflections on the craft of clear writing.
Academy of Management Review, 37, 493-501.
*Ragins, B. R. (2015). Editor’s comments: Developing our authors.
Academy of Management Review, 40, 1-8.
*Ragins, B. R. (2017a). Editor’s comments: Raising the bar for
developmental reviewing. Academy of Management Review,
42, 573-576.
*Ragins, B. R. (2017b). From boxing to dancing: Creating a devel-
opmental editorial culture. Journal of Management Inquiry,
27(2), 158-163. DOI: 1056492617726273.
*Rupp, D. E. (2011). Ethical issues faced by editors and reviewers.
Management and Organization Review, 7, 481-493.
†Rupp, D. E., Thornton, M. A., Rogelberg, S. G., Olien, J. L., &
Berka, G. (2014). The characteristics of quality scholarly sub-
missions considerations of author team composition and deci-
sion making. Journal of Management, 40, 1501-1510.
*Rynes, S. L. (2006a). Making the most of the review process:
Lessons from award-winning authors. Academy of Management
Journal, 49(2), 189-190.
Rynes, S. L. (2006b). Observations on “Anatomy of an R&R” and
other reflections. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 208-
214.
*Rynes, S. L. (2006c). Streamlining the revise and resubmit process
at AMJ. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 873-874.
*Schaubroeck, J. (2007). What’s new and what isn’t. Organizational
Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 104, 123-129. DOI:
10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.10.004.
*Seibert, S. E. (2006). Anatomy of an R&R (or, reviewers are an
author’s best friends. . .). Academy of Management Journal,
49, 203.
*Shaw, J. (2012). From the editors: Responding to reviewers.
Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1261-1263.
Stackman, R. W. (2017). Away from Abilene and toward a com-
munity of practice ecosystem: Developmental peer reviews
realized. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27(2), DOI:
1056492617726274.
Starbuck, W. H. (2003). Turning lemons into lemonade: Where is
the value in peer reviews? Journal of Management Inquiry,
12(4), 344-351.
Treviño, L. K. (2008). Editor’s comments: Why review? Because
reviewing is a professional responsibility. Academy of
Management Review, 33, 8-10.
*Tsui, A. S., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2009). Successful authors and
effective reviewers: Balancing supply and demand in the orga-
nizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 12(2),
259-275.
*Wright, P. M. (2015). Rethinking “contribution”. Journal of
Management, 41, 765-768.
*Wright, P. M. (2016). Ensuring research integrity: An editor’s per-
spective. Journal of Management, 42, 1037-1043.
*Wright, T. A. (2013). The “incubation” of high-impact ideas: Past
directions and future perspectives. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 34(4), 427-430.