Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-mnklg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T12:44:09.983Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Developmental Reviewer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2015

Paul S. Hempel
Paul S. Hempel*
Affiliation:
City University of Hong Kong, China
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Editorials on Reviewing
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , July 2014, pp. 175 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © International Association for Chinese Management Research 2014

References

Carpenter, M. A. 2009. Mentoring colleagues in the craft and spirit of peer review. Academy of Management Review, 34(2): 191–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, D. C. 2003. Sense and sensibility: Balancing the interests of authors, reviewers, and editors. Journal of Management, 29(1): 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, D. C. 2008. Building and maintaining a strong editorial board and cadre of ad hoc reviewers. In Baruch, Y., Konrad, A. M., Aguinis, H. & Starbuck, W. H. (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship: 68–74. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepak, D. 2009. What is good reviewing? Academy of Management Review, 34(3): 375–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsang, E. W. K., & Frey, B. S. 2007. The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(1): 128–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsui, A. S., & Holleneck, J. R. 2009. Successful authors and effective reviewers: Balancing supply and demand in the organizational science. Organizational Research Methods, 12(2): 259–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar