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 (OnlineFirst PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
1094428108318429v1
12/2/259    most recent
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tsui, A. S.
Right arrow Articles by Hollenbeck, J. R.
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?

Article

Successful Authors and Effective Reviewers: Balancing Supply and Demand in the Organizational Sciences

Anne S. Tsui* and John R. Hollenbeck

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: anne.tsui{at}asu.edu.


  Abstract
Bedeian, Van Fleet, and Hyman offer some data that cast doubt on the qualifications of the reviewers of the flagship journals in our field. Using two alternative measures of authoring success, we found the reviewers of Academy of Management Journal are as a group more accomplished scholars than the authors are as a group. However, we suggest that a more relevant conversation should be about addressing the large gap between the demand for effective reviewers and the supply of individuals who are both successful authors and effective reviewers. We encourage a two-pronged approach involving reducing the demand for reviews on one hand and increasing the supply of effective reviewers on the other hand. We offer several procedural and structural alternatives to initiate a conversation that might help to move us toward some norms to encourage and reward effective reviewing in our field.

First published on June 5, 2008, doi:10.1177/1094428108318429

Organizational Research Methods 2009;12:259.

A more recent version of this article appeared on April 1, 2009

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?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Organizational Research MethodsHome page
A. G. Bedeian, D. D. Van Fleet, and H. H. Hyman III
``Circle the Wagons and Defend the Faith'': Slicing and Dicing the Data
Organizational Research Methods, April 1, 2009; 12(2): 276 - 295.
[Abstract] [PDF]