Abstract
As editor of The Academy of Management Journal (AMI), I am often asked whether or not I like the job. Almost without thinking, I say: “I like it much better than being a reviewer. It’s much more positive and creative.”
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Agarwal, R., Echambadi, R., Franco, A. M., & Sarkar, M. B. (2006). REAP rewards: Maximizing benefits from reviewer comments. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 191–6.
Bartunek, J. M., Rynes, S. L., & Ireland, R. D. (2006). What makes management research interesting and why does it matter? Academy of Management Journal, 49, 9–15.
Cummings, L. L., Frost, P. J., & Vakil, T. F. (1985). The manuscript review process: A view from the inside on coaches, critics, and special cases. In L. L. Cummings and P. J. Frost (Eds.), Publishing in the organizational sciences, pp. 469–508. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Daft, R. L. (1995). Why I recommended that your manuscript be rejected and what you can do about it. In L. L. Cummings and P. J. Frost (Eds.), Publishing in the organizational sciences ( 2nd ed. ), pp. 164–82. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. (1990). Can organizational studies begin to break out of the normal science straightjacket? An editorial essay. Organization Science, 1, 1–9.
Editor’s Note. (2006). Streamlining the revise and resubmit process at AMJ. The Academy of Management Journal, 49, 873–4.
Frey, B. S. (2003). Publishing as prostitution? Choosing between one’s own ideas and academic success. Public Choice, 116, 205–23.
Gephart, R. P. (2004). Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 454–62.
Jacobs, J. A. (2007). The case for an activist editorial model. This volume, chapter 13.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance:A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–84.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1984). Goal setting: A motivational technique that works! Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Meyer, A. D. (1995). Balls, strikes, and collisions on the base path: Ruminations of a veteran reviewer. In L. L. Cummings and P. J. Frost (Eds.), Publishing in the organizational sciences ( 2nd ed. ), pp. 257–68. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Pondy, L. R. (1995). The reviewer as defense attorney. In L. L. Cummings and P. J. Frost (Eds.), Publishing in the organizational sciences ( 2nd ed. ), pp. 183–94. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Romanelli, E. (1995). Becoming a reviewer: Lessons somewhat painfully learned. In L. L. Cummings and P. J. Frost (Eds.), Publishing in the organizational sciences ( 2nd ed. ), pp. 195–202. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Suddaby, R. (2006). What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal. 49, 633–42.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2008 Sara L. Rynes
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rynes, S.L. (2008). Communicating with Authors. In: Baruch, Y., Konrad, A.M., Aguinis, H., Starbuck, W.H. (eds) Opening the Black Box of Editorship. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230582590_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230582590_6
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-28490-0
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-58259-0
eBook Packages: Palgrave Business & Management CollectionBusiness and Management (R0)