Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Organizational Research Methods
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
1094428107308855v1
11/3/510    most recent
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Savall, H.
Right arrow Articles by Peron, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Reviews

The Emergence of Implicit Criteria Actually Used by Reviewers of Qualitative Research Articles

Case of a European Journal

Henri Savall

ISEOR, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3

Veronique Zardet

ISEOR, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3

Marc Bonnet

ISEOR, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3

Michel Peron

ISEOR, Université Paris -Sorbonne Nouvelle

This article brings to light the actual evaluation practices of reviewers when assessing qualitative manuscripts. The authors conducted the first empirical research entirely based on reviewer reports for a journal on management sciences over a 28-year period. Content analysis of 474 reviewer reports written by 56 reviewers identified 19 critical points and 10 criteria, making up a synthetic table of 190 possible cells, 51 of which proved to be actually used by reviewers. These findings are then compared with the quality criteria identified in the extant U.S. literature. Comparison reveals some shared quality criteria but also throws new light on a number of discrepancies. Analysis over time shows marked evolution from emphasis on internal validity criteria over the first 10 years toward emphasis on external validity criteria in the past 10 years. Factors ensuring reliability and replicability of the results of this research are discussed at length.

Key Words: academic review process • qualitative content analysis • implicit criteria • method • replicability • validity

This version was published on July 1, 2008

Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 11, No. 3, 510-540 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/1094428107308855
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?