High-quality papers require high-quality reviews. As you review papers for AMD, please keep the following in mind.
- The paper must fit the AMD Mission. In other words, it must use data – analyzed on the basis of rigorous, state-of-the-art methods – to isolate and provide insight into (and plausible explanations for) management/organizational anomalies, phenomena and/or relationships, having robust implications for management and organizations.
- Because AMD seeks empirical studies of poorly-understood yet important phenomena, we expect they will be directed by specific research questions and conjectures rather than testing refined hypotheses. Introductory paragraphs should clearly ground the phenomenon or issue in the extant literature, and explicate the significance the research question. While this can be done many ways, we encourage this grounding to clearly describe a particular case or instance of the phenomenon, and the context or settings in which it exists. This grounding should also include a statement of the specific research question that guides the study of the phenomenon, why it is important, and how it is addressed in the paper.
- The paper must be truly pre-theoretical, highlighting in the discussion what implications the findings have for theory and further theoretical development. Because AMD publishes primarily abductive research, strong papers should use the empirical patterns uncovered in their analyses to “push the theoretical envelope”, laying out criteria that future theory generation must meet, or plausible parameters that might inform the development of new theoretical models, propositions or hypotheses. Authors providing the typical “implications for future research” should be encouraged to reflect more deeply about their findings and think about what they might communicate to a colleague developing a conceptual/theoretical paper on the same issue for submission to Academy of Management Review.
- Revised and accepted papers should always reflect the author's voice, as opposed to that of the reviewer or action editor. To accomplish this, we ask you to assess a paper in terms of the author's purposes, and to suggest specific ways to improve and achieve them. We encourage developmental reviewing, but be careful not to impose your agenda or to over-step your role by asking authors to adopt your preferred perspective. Wherever possible, final publication decisions will be made after no more than one revision.
- When writing your review please:
- Be constructive: Don't just point out problems, also suggest solutions. Reviewers should be like "lifeguards" – trying to save the current manuscript, or at least the next project in the stream of research.
- Focus on the core issues that make or break a paper. Is the discovery interesting and important? Are the concepts clearly defined? Are the data valid and reliable? Is the methodology sound? Is the argument logical and persuasive? Will the findings make a difference? Don't send the author(s) on a "wild goose chase" by suggesting concepts, perspectives, or literatures that are not essential to the paper's core framework. Please provide full citations for works suggested.
- Be concise and specific: Keep your reviews short and to the point - typically not more than two pages. Number the points in your review, and specify the page numbers where they apply. Don't give a page-by-page critique; instead, consolidate your critiques into more general themes or concerns.
- Be polite and conversational: Be "author friendly" in your tone, and use terms like "you" instead of "the authors."
- Don't be "two-faced": Don't send a message in your Comments to the Author that differs from the message that you send in your Comments to the Editor on the Reviewer Evaluation Form. Following this guideline will help the action editor avoid being in the awkward position of rejecting a paper that--seemingly --has positive reviews.
- Non-English native authors: You will sometimes be asked to review submissions from authors whose native language is not English. In those cases, distinguish between the quality of the writing and the quality of the ideas that the writing conveys. Those ideas may be good, even if they are not expressed well.
- Be on time: Please return your review on time so that the action editor can guarantee the author(s) a quick turnaround.
We encourage you to read the From the Editor Column, PEER REVIEW, ROOT CANALS, AND OTHER AMAZING LIFE EVENTS by C. Chet Miller and Andrew H. Van de Ven. In this article, the editors address issues related to peer review with an eye toward ensuring the best possible reviewing at Academy of Management Discoveries (AMD).
- Submitting your review
- Log in to Manuscript Central
- Go to the Reviewer Center
- Click the teal icon under Perform Review
- Rate the manuscript using the Reviewer Evaluation Form.
- Register your bottom-line recommendation
- Explain your recommendation to the editor in the Comments to the Editor (those comments are not shared with the authors). Please do not mention your bottom-line recommendation in the text of your actual review.
- Under Comments to the Author, either paste your review into your browser or upload your review as a Word file.
- Contact AMD's Managing Editor, Susan Zaid, with any questions.
View the AOM Ethics policy page, which includes the Academy of Management Code of Ethics and detailed Procedures and Inquiry requests.
- Contributing reviews is a vital component of academic service and the peer review process could not function without such contributions.
- As a small token of appreciation for non-board members, we annually list the names of all ad hoc reviewers from a given year in an issue of AMD. Names of board members are included on the masthead of each issue.