Editor's Comments: Mentoring Colleagues in the Craft and Spirit of Peer Review

REFERENCES

• Academy of Management Journal. 2006. Academy of Management Journal editors' forum on the review process. 49(2). Google Scholar
• Academy of Management Review. 1989.Special topic forum on theory development. 14(2). Google Scholar
• Academy of Management Review. 1999. Special topic forum on theory development: Evaluation, reflections, and new directions. 24(2). Google Scholar
• Burlew L. 1991. Multiple mentor model: A conceptual framework. Journal of Career Development, 17, 213–221. Google Scholar
• Ericsson K. A. 2006. The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In Ericsson K. A.Charness N.Feltovich P.Hoffman R. R. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance: 685–706. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
• Hambrick D., Chen M.-J. 2008. New academic fields as admittance-seeking social movements: The case of strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 33: 32–54.Link , Google Scholar
• Harrison D. 2002. Obligations and obfuscations in the review process. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 1079–1084. Google Scholar
• Houghton B. 1975. Scientific periodicals: Their historical development, characteristics and control. London: Clive Bingley. Google Scholar
• Kilduff M. 2007. The top ten reasons why your paper might not be sent out for review. Academy of Management Review, 32: 700–702.Abstract , Google Scholar
• Kuhn T. S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
• Raelin J. 2008. Refereeing the game of peer review. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7: 124–129.Link , Google Scholar
• Rindova V. 2008. Publishing theory when you are new to the game. Academy of Management Review, 33: 300–303.Link , Google Scholar
• Treviño L. 2008. Why review? Because reviewing is a professional responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33: 8–10.Link , Google Scholar