International Journal of Management
Guidelines for reviewers
International Journal of Management publishes original papers in the theory and practice of management. Our primary requirement is that accepted papers make a significant contribution to our knowledge of management, both theoretical and practical. In order to provide quality feedback to our authors, it is important that all reviewers keep the aims and objectives of IJM in mind throughout the review process.
importance of the review process
The reputation of IMJ depends upon our publishing the best theoretical and empirical work available. To do this, we must provide timely, relevant and informed reviews focussed on the aims and objectives of the journal.
timelines
It is important when invited to review a paper for IJM that you not only reply quickly but you complete your review on time. IJM has a policy of returning the reviews of referees to authors within two months of their papers being received--and the receipt being acknowledged. To comply with this we ask that you respond to the request to act as a reviewer within 10 days, and to complete the entire review within 40 days. There is nothing worse for authors than for them to have to wait for reviews of their papers beyond the stated time we give them. Usually, the quicker the reviews, the more they will appreciate publishing with IJM. If you cannot do the review in the time available tell us immediately so we can get another reviewer to take your place.
quality of reviews
Besides being timely, reviews for IMJ should be of high quality. They should make clear to the author just what constitutes a contribution to the filed, where his or the paper succeeds in this and where it fall short. It is important in his respect that the authors feel they have really benefited from the reviews they receive from IJM. Some suggestions for reviewers for IJM
Be constructive: Even if the paper is not good enough, it is still important that reviewers provide positive feedback, telling the author how the paper could be improved, not just where it falls short. If the problems cannot be rectified in the present paper, suggest how it can be done in further research, which could well be submitted to IJM.
Be specific: It is essential that you tell authors exactly what they are doing right and precisely where they are going wrong, in your opinion. Typically, the more particular you can be, the more useful your advice will be. Typically, authors tell us they prefer feedback to be in the form of numbered paragraph, each covering a definite and different point.
Consider contribution: Whereas academic rigour and coherence are important, we like our reviewers at IJM to asses the overall contribution the paper makes to the literature. At IJM we want the papers we publish to be interesting, relevant and to advance our readers’ understanding of important issues in management. We want them to feel that reading a paper in IJM is a worthwhile exercise, that doing has really extended or advanced what they know abut something important in management.
Remember you are not a copy editor: Occasionally at IJM you will be asked to review a paper by an author whose first language is obviously not English. In these cases you to remind yourself that your job is not to improve grammar or spelling, but to comment on the ideas and arguments about management that are in the paper. At IJM we have an editor who can improve the English of the authors, without altering the content of the paper at all. Leave it to her as much as possible.
Be consistent: IJM requests that reviewers give feedback to authors in line with the reviewers’ recommendations to the editor. One of the worst errors from our point of view is for referees to make favourable comments to authors whilst advising against publication –to the editor. This places the editor of IJM in the difficult position of having to reject papers despite apparent positive reviews from the referee to the author.
IJM’s policy of ‘double blind ‘reviewing means that neither the author nor referee know of the identity of each other. To make this effective, the referee should not discuss the paper or the fact they are referring it with anyone other than the editor until the paper has been accepted or rejected. Finally, please do not put recommendations on the review you intend for the author. These should be communicated only to the editor of IJM, who is responsible for he final publication decision.