Published Online:1 Jul 2009https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.40631320
REFERENCES
- 2004. Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3: 198–216.Link , Google Scholar
- 1985. Editor's comments. Academy of Management Review, 10: 6–7.Abstract , Google Scholar
- 2003. How to review a paper. Advances in Physiological Education, 27(2): 47–52. Google Scholar
- 2009. Editor's Comments: Mentoring colleagues in the craft and spirit of peer review. Academy of Management Review, 34: 191–195.Link , Google Scholar
- 1982. Editorial: Some remarks from the outgoing editor. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 691–700. Google Scholar
- 2002. Obligations and obfuscations in the review process. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 1079–1084. Google Scholar
- 2002. Some candid thoughts on the publication process. Journal of Management, 28: 585–590. Google Scholar
- 1995. Understanding performance appraisal. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
- 2001. From the editors. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 1079–1080.Link , Google Scholar
- 1995. The reviewer as defense attorney. In Cummings L. L.Frost P. J. (Eds.), Publishing in the organizational sciences(2d ed.): 185–194. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
- 1995. Publishing from a reviewer's perspective. In Cummings L. L.Frost P. J. (Eds.), Publishing in the organizational sciences (2d ed.): 151–163. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
- 2007. The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6: 128–136.Link , Google Scholar
- 2008. Successful authors and effective reviewers: Balancing supply and demand in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 12: 1–17. Google Scholar
- 2002. From the editors: Tensions. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 487–490.Link , Google Scholar
