Editor's Comments: Developing our Authors

REFERENCES

• Ambrose M., Daily C. M. 2000. From the editors. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 247–248.Link , Google Scholar
• Bedeian A. G. 2003. The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12: 331–338. Google Scholar
• Bedeian A. G. 2004. Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3: 198–216.Link , Google Scholar
• Bergh D. D. 2002. From the editors: Deriving greater benefit from the reviewing process. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 633–636.Link , Google Scholar
• Bergh D. D. 2008. The developmental editor: Assessing and directing manuscript contribution. In Baruch Y.Konrad A.Aguinis H.Starbuck W. H. (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship: 114–123. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar
• 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: 1219–1260.Link , Google Scholar
• Brown K. G. 2012. From the editors: Thoughts on effective reviewing. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11: 152–154.Link , Google Scholar
• Caligiuri P., Thomas D. C. 2013. From the editors: How to write a high-quality review. Journal of International Business Studies, 44: 547–553. Google Scholar
• Carpenter M. A. 2009. Editor's comments: Mentoring colleagues in the craft and spirit of peer review. Academy of Management Review, 34: 191–195.Link , Google Scholar
• Clair J. In press. Toward a bill of rights for manuscript submitters. Academy of Management Learning & Education. Google Scholar
• Comer D. R., Schwartz M. 2014. The problem of humiliation in peer review. Ethics and Education, 9: 141–156. Google Scholar
• Corley K. G., Gioia D. A. 2011. Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36: 12–32.Link , Google Scholar
• Cummings L. L., Frost P. J., Vakil T. F. 1985. The manuscript review process: A view from inside on coaches, critics, and special cases. In Cummings L. L.Frost P. J. (Eds.), Publishing in the organizational sciences: 469–508. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Google Scholar
• Day N. E. 2011. The silent majority: Manuscript rejection and its impact on scholars. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10: 704–718.Link , Google Scholar
• DeNisi A. S. 2008. Managing the editorial review process: It's the people that matter. In Baruch Y.Konrad A.Aguinis H.Starbuck W. H. (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship: 75–87. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar
• Epstein S. 1995. What can be done to improve the journal review process. American Psychologist, 50: 883–885. Google Scholar
• Feldman D. C. 2004. Being a developmental reviewer: Easier said than done. Journal of Management, 30: 161–164. Google Scholar
• Fulmer I. S. 2012. Editor's comments: The craft of writing theory articles—Variety and similarity in AMR. Academy of Management Review, 37: 327–331. Google Scholar
• Graham J. W., Stablein R. E. 1995. A funny thing happened on the way to publication: Newcomers' perspectives on publishing in the organizational sciences. In Cummings L. L.Frost P. J. (Eds.), Publishing in the organizational sciences (2nd ed.): 113–131. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
• Harrison D. 2002. From the editors: Obligations and obfuscations in the review process. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 1079–1084.Link , Google Scholar
• Hempel P. S. 2014. The developmental reviewer. Management and Organization Review, 10: 175–181. Google Scholar
• Kilduff M. 2006. Editor's comments: Publishing theory. Academy of Management Review, 31: 252–255.Link , Google Scholar
• Kumashiro K. K. 2005. Thinking collaboratively about the peer-review process for journal-article publication. Harvard Educational Review, 75: 257–285. Google Scholar
• Lepak D. 2009. Editor's comments: What is good reviewing? Academy of Management Review, 34: 375–381.Link , Google Scholar
• Long R. G., Bowers W. P., Barnett T., White M. C. 1998. Research productivity of graduates in management: Effects of academic origin and academic affiliation. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 704–714.Link , Google Scholar
• Pondy L. R. 1995. The reviewer as defense attorney. In Cummings L. L.Frost P. J. (Eds.), Publishing in the organizational sciences (2nd ed.): 183–194. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
• Sanders W. G. 2009. What it means to be a developmental action editor. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 640–642.Link , Google Scholar
• Saunders C. 2005a. Editor's comments: Looking for diamond cutters. MIS Quarterly, 29: iii–viii. Google Scholar
• Saunders C. 2005b. Editor's comments: From the trenches: Thoughts on developmental reviewing. MIS Quarterly, 29: iii–xii. Google Scholar
• Schminke M. 2002. From the editors: Tensions. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 487–490.Link , Google Scholar
• Starbuck W. H. 2003. Turning lemons into lemonade: Where is the value in peer reviews? Journal of Management Inquiry, 12: 344–351. Google Scholar
• Sutton R. I., Staw B. M. 1995. What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 371–384. Google Scholar
• Tsang E. W. K. 2014. Ensuring manuscript quality and preserving authorial voice: The balancing act of editors. Management and Organization Review, 10: 191–197. Google Scholar
• Tsui A. S. 1998. From the editor. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 246–248.Link , Google Scholar