The Generous Spirit of the Peer Review Process: Perspectives and Insights From the HRDQ Editorial Team on Providing High-Quality Reviews

Human Resource Development Quarterly

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 417-428

  Ellinger, Andrea D ^a   Anderson, Valerie ^b   Gubbins, Claire ^c   Lynn Lunn, Mary ^a   Nimon, Kim F ^d   Sheehan, Maura ^e   Werner, Jon M ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

^c DUBLIN CITY UNIVERSITY   (Ireland)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS   (United States)

^e NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND   (Ireland)

^f UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN WHITEWATER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84889663899     PISSN: 10448004     EISSN: 15321096     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.21176     Document Type: Editorial

References (37)

1. American Educational Research Association. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 33-40.
2. Brown, K. G. (2012). From the editors: Thoughts on effective reviewing. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(2), 152-154. doi:10.5465/amle.2012.0132
3. Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Business research methods (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
4. Carpenter, M. A. (2009). Editor's comments: Mentoring colleagues in the craft and spirit of peer review. Academy of Management Review, 34(2), 191-195. doi:10.5465/AMR.2009.36982609
5. Cascio, W. (2012). Methodological issue in international HR management research. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(12), 2532-2545.
6. Courville, T., & Thompson, B. (2001). Use of structure coefficients in published multiple regression articles: β is not enough. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(2), 229-248.
7. Crescentini, A., & Mainardi, G. (2009). Qualitative research articles: Guidelines, suggestions and needs. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(5), 431-439.
8. Davis, D. (1996). Business research for decision making (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.
9. Doh, J. P. (2010). Introduction: Implications for practice: Core contribution or afterthought? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(1), 98-99. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2010.48661193
10. Ellinger, A. D., & Yang, B. (2011). Creating the whole from the parts: Qualities of good writing: In T. S. Rocco & T. Hatcher (Eds.), The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
11. Fitzpatrick, K. (2010). Peer-to-peer review and the future of scholarly authority. Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, 24(3), 161-179.
12. Geletkanycz, M., & Tepper, B. J. (2012). Publishing in AMJ-Part 6: Discussing the implications. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 256-260. doi:10.5465/amj.2012.4002
13. Holton, E. F., & Burnett, M. F. (2005). The basics of quantitative research. In R. Swanson & E. Holton (Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry (pp. 29-44). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
14. Kilduff, M. (2007). The top ten reasons why your paper might not be sent out for review. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 700-702. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.25274943
15. Lepak, D. (2009). Editor's comments: What is good reviewing? Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 375-381. doi:10.5465/AMR.2009.40631320
16. Lynham, S. A. (2002). Quantitative research and theory building: Dubin's method. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 242-276. doi:10.1177/1523422302043002
17. Miller, C. C. (2006). Peer review in the organizational and management sciences: Prevalence and effects of reviewer hostility, bias, and dissensus. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 425-431.
18. Nathans, L. L., Oswald, F. L., & Nimon, K. (2012). Interpreting multiple linear regression: A guidebook of variable importance. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(9), 1-19.
19. Nimon, K. (2011). Improving the quality of quantitative research reports [Editorial]. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(4), 387-394.
20. Nimon, K. (2012). Statistical assumptions of substantive analyses across the general linear model: A mini-review. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(322), 1-5.
21. Olejnik, S., & Algina, J. (2000). Measures of effect size for comparative studies: Applications, interpretations, and limitations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 241-286.
22. Osborne, J. W. (2000). Advantages of hierarchical linear modeling. Practical Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, 71(1). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=1
23. Rocco, T. S. (2003). Shaping up the future: Writing up the method on qualitative studies. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(3), 343-349.
24. Rocco, T. S. (2010). Criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. Human Resource Development International, 13(4), 375-378. doi:10.1080/13678868.2010.501959
25. Rynes, S. L. (2006) "Getting on Board" with AMJ: Balancing quality and innovation in the review process. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1097-1102.
26. Starbuck, W. H. (2003). Turning lemons into lemonade: Where is the value in peer reviews? Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 344-351.
27. Storberg-Walker, J. (2012). Instructor's corner: Tips for publishing and reviewing qualitative studies in applied disciplines. Human Resource Development Review, 11(2), 254-261.
28. Sullivan, S. E., Baruch, Y., & Schepmyer, H. (2010). The why, what, and how of reviewer education: A human capital approach. Journal of Management Education, 34(3), 393-429. doi:10.1177/1052562909346687
29. Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371-384. doi:10.2307/2393788
30. Thompson, B. (1988). Discard variance: A cardinal sin in research. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 21, 3-4.
31. Thompson, B. (1999, April). Common methodology mistakes in educational research, revisited, along with a primer on both effect sizes and the bootstrap. Invited address presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 429 110).
32. Tracy, S. J. (2010, December). Qualitative inquiry: Eight "big-ten" criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 837-851.
33. Trevino, L. K. (2008). Editor's comments: Why review? Because reviewing is a professional responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 8-10.
34. Wall, T., Michie, J., Patterson, M., Wood, S., Sheehan, M., Clegg, C.W., et al. (2004). On the validity of subjective measures of company performance. Personnel Psychology, 57, 95-118.
35. Winn, P. L. (2008). Enhancing peer review: Guidelines and updates for HRDQ contributors and reviewers. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19(4), 277-279. doi:10.1002/hrdq
36. Zhang, Y., & Shaw, J. D. (2012). From the editors: Publishing in AMJ-Part 5: Crafting the methods and results. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 8-12. doi:10.5465/amj.2012.4001
37. Zientek, L. R., & Thompson, B. (2009). Matrix summaries improve research reports: Secondary analyses using published literature. Educational Researcher, 38, 343-352.