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

Are you inclined to “agree,” are you “unavailable,” or do you “decline” when you receive a personal review invitation from Human Resource Development Quarterly (HRDQ)? We sincerely hope that you will accept our invitations to perform reviews when we reach out to personally solicit your expertise. However, we do acknowledge that many reviewers immediately decline, note their lack of availability, or send us e-mails acknowledging the personal and professional commitments that preclude them from contributing to the journal in the capacity of a reviewer. We fully appreciate that many potential reviewers are being overly burdened with a high volume of review requests from many different journals, and that, at times, declining reviews may be necessary, particularly if declining is better than not delivering (Trevino, 2008). We realize that challenging work and unanticipated life event issues may present themselves, or that conflicts of interest might arise regarding author identity, or that performing a review by a specified due date may simply not be possible.

[1]  Rachel A Robbins,et al.  A Review and Clarification of the Terms “holistic,” “configural,” and “relational” in the Face Perception Literature , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[2]  Kim F. Nimon,et al.  Interpreting multiple linear regression , 2012 .

[3]  Kim F. Nimon,et al.  Statistical Assumptions of Substantive Analyses Across the General Linear Model: A Mini-Review , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[4]  Julia Storberg-Walker,et al.  Instructor’s Corner , 2012 .

[5]  Kenneth G. Brown,et al.  From the Editors: Thoughts on Effective Reviewing , 2012 .

[6]  Wayne F. Cascio,et al.  Methodological issues in international HR management research , 2012 .

[7]  Kim F. Nimon,et al.  Interpreting Multiple Linear Regression: A Guidebook of Variable Importance , 2012 .

[8]  Marta A. Geletkanycz,et al.  Publishing in AMJ–Part 6: Discussing the Implications , 2012 .

[9]  Yan Zhang,et al.  Publishing in AMJ—Part 5: Crafting the Methods and Results , 2012 .

[10]  Kim F. Nimon.  Improving the quality of quantitative research reports: A call for action , 2011 .

[11]  Sarah J. Tracy.  Qualitative Quality: Eight “Big-Tent” Criteria for Excellent Qualitative Research , 2010 .

[12]  Tonette S. Rocco,et al.  Criteria for evaluating qualitative studies , 2010 .

[13]  Y. Baruch,et al.  The Why, What, and How of Reviewer Education: A Human Capital Approach , 2010 .

[14]  J. Doh.  Introduction: Implications for Practice—Core Contribution or Afterthought? , 2010 .

[15]  Alberto Crescentini,et al.  Qualitative research articles: guidelines, suggestions and needs , 2009 .

[16]  David P. Lepak,et al.  Editor's Comments: What is Good Reviewing? , 2009 .

[17]  B. Thompson,et al.  Matrix Summaries Improve Research Reports: Secondary Analyses Using Published Literature , 2009 .

[18]  Mason A. Carpenter,et al.  Editor's Comments: Mentoring Colleagues in the Craft and Spirit of Peer Review , 2009 .

[19]  Kathleen Fitzpatrick,et al.  Peer‐to‐peer Review and the Future of Scholarly Authority , 2009 .

[20]  P. Winn.  Enhancing peer review: Guidelines and updates for HRDQ contributors and reviewers , 2008 .

[21]  Martin Kilduff,et al.  Editor's comments: The top ten reasons why your paper might not be sent out for review , 2007 .

[22]  Sara L. Rynes,et al.  “Getting on Board” with AMJ: Balancing Quality and Innovation in the Review Process , 2006 .

[23]  Pamela A. Moss,et al.  Standards for Reporting on Empirical Social Science Research in AERA Publications American Educational Research Association , 2006 .

[24]  Debra L. Shapiro,et al.  PEER REVIEW IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT SCIENCES: PREVALENCE AND EFFECTS OF REVIEWER HOSTILITY, BIAS, AND DISSENSUS , 2006 .

[25]  W. Tierney,et al.  Hate Speech and Academic Freedom in the Academy , 2006 .

[26]  T. Wall,et al.  On the validity of subjective measures of company performance , 2004 .

[27]  William H. Starbuck,et al.  Turning Lemons into Lemonade , 2003 .

[28]  T. Rocco.  Shaping the Future: Writing up the Method on Qualitative Studies. , 2003 .

[29]  Susan A. Lynham,et al.  Quantitative Research and Theory Building: Dubin’s Method , 2002 .

[30]  B. Thompson,et al.  Use of Structure Coefficients in Published Multiple Regression Articles: β is not Enough , 2001 .

[31]  Olejnik,et al.  Measures of Effect Size for Comparative Studies: Applications, Interpretations, and Limitations. , 2000, Contemporary educational psychology.

[32]  Bruce Thompson,et al.  Common Methodology Mistakes in Educational Research, Revisited, along with a Primer on Both Effect Sizes and the Bootstrap. , 1999 .

[33]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  What Theory is Not , 1995 .

[34]  Bruce Thompson,et al.  Discarding Variance: A Cardinal Sin in Research , 1988 .

[35]  F. Freeman.  Educational Research Association , 1922 .

[36]  Linda Klebe Trevino,et al.  Editor's Comments: Why Review? Because Reviewing is a Professional Responsibility , 2008 .

[37]  B. Schneider,et al.  Standards for Reporting on Empirical Social Science Research in AERA Publications American Educational Research Association , 2006 .

[38]  Jason W. Osborne,et al.  Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation Advantages of Hierarchical Linear Modeling Advantages of Hierarchical Linear Modeling , 2022 .

[39]  Duane Davis,et al.  Business research for decision making , 1985 .

[40]  Donald R. Cooper,et al.  Business Research Methods , 1980 .