What Authors Need to Know to Navigate the Review Process Successfully: Understanding and Managing the Editor’s Dilemma

Abstract

After 30 years of experience publishing articles in scientific journals and service on editorial boards of leading journals, I accepted appointment to a three-year term as associate editor of Academy of Management Journal (AMI). Because of the trailing pipeline, the job actually extended beyond four years, during which I served as action-editor on over 300 submitted manuscripts, over 60 of which went through revision. As I became immersed in the role, I was surprised myself at some basic things I had not known about the refereeing process despite having published dozens of articles. This essay is intended to help young colleagues learn these things earlier than I did. I’m assuming the reader has read some of the basic books (e.g., Huff, 1999) and edited volumes (e.g., Cummings & Frost, 1995; Baruch, Sullivan, & Schepmyer, 2006) regarding the publication process, and especially specific chapters focused on the relationship between editor and author from both points of view (e.g., Daft, 1985; Zahra & Neubaum, 2006). Indeed, the availability of so much useful material gives me the feeling of, “Here we go again, one more time: How does one navigate the review process successfully?”

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.