Editor's comments: Mentoring colleagues in the craft and spirit of peer review

Academy of Management Review

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 191-195

  Carpenter, Mason A ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 65249120331     PISSN: 03637425     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5465/AMR.2009.36982609     Document Type: Editorial

References (13)

1. Academy of Management Journal. 2006. Academy of Management Journal editors' forum on the review process. 49(2).
2. Academy of Management Review. 1989. Special topic forum on theory development. 14(2).
3. Academy of Management Review. 1999. Special topic forum on theory development: Evaluation, reflections, and new directions. 24(2).
4. Burlew, L. 1991. Multiple mentor model: A conceptual framework. Journal of Career Development. 17: 213-221.
5. Ericsson, K. A. 2006. The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance: 685-706. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Hambrick, D., & Chen, M.-J. 2008. New academic fields as admittance-seeking social movements: The case of strategic management. Academy of Management Review. 33:32-54.
7. Harrison, D. 2002. Obligations and obfuscations in the review process. Academy of Management Journal. 46: 1079-1084.
8. Houghton, B. 1975. Scientific periodicals: Their historical development characteristics and control. London: Clive Bingley.
9. Kilduff, M. 2007. The top ten reasons why your paper might not be sent out for review. Academy of Management Review. 32: 700-702.
10. Kuhn. T. S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11. Raelin, J. 2008. Refereeing the game of peer review. Academy of Management Learning & Education. 7: 124-129.
12. Rindova, V. 2008. Publishing theory when you are new to the game. Academy of Management Review. 33: 300-303.
13. Treviño, L. 2008. Why review? Because reviewing is a professional responsibility. Academy of Management Review. 33: 8-10.