Reviewer Guidelines

Setting the Tone for the Review

Please keep your comments constructive. If the problems you identify cannot be fixed, try to provide the authors with constructive ideas for how they might improve upon their submission as they develop their paper. It is also important to try and identify the strengths of a manuscript to help the author(s) improve their work.
One of the greatest services that reviewers perform is the development of the research of members who submit their work. Identify areas of weakness in a manuscript, but also provide specific guidance on how the authors might address the limitations you have noted. The more specificity you provide in your review, the more likely it is that the authors will benefit from your efforts.
Authors deserve to be treated with respect, regardless of your evaluation of their work.
Please try to be open-minded to different authors using different theoretical frameworks and analytical approaches. Try to judge manuscripts based on how well they stimulate thinking and discussion.

You must submit your review within the timelines provided. There is no slack in our schedule. Please see the symposium website http://business.troy.edu/symposium for more information.
Provide a structured review by separating and numbering comments. Also, where appropriate, cite specific page numbers, passages, tables, and figures in your review.
If you are uncertain about your comments in terms of some aspects of your review, please do your best to determine the accuracy of your position.
Do not provide information in your review that reveals your identity and do not seek to discover the identity of the authors. This protects the integrity of the 'double-blind" review process.
A good review is typically 1 single-spaced page in length.
In addition to commenting on the theoretical development of a submission and the technical correctness of the methodology, you should also consider the overall value added contribution the submission offers. Does the submission pass the “so what” test? Also, consider whether the submission has any practical value, and comment on its implications for the practice community.

The following points are some suggested criteria that might help you structure your evaluations of the submissions sent to you:

Introduction
- Is there a clear research question, with a solid motivation behind it?
- Is the research question interesting?
- After reading the introduction, did you find yourself motivated to read further?
Theory
- Does the submission contain a well-developed and articulated theoretical framework?
- Are the core concepts of the submission clearly defined?
- Is the logic behind the hypotheses persuasive?
- Is extant literature appropriately reflected in the submission, or are critical references missing?
- Do the hypotheses or propositions logically flow from the theory?
Method (for empirical papers)
- Are the sample and variables appropriate for the hypotheses?
- Is the data collection method consistent with the analytical technique(s) applied?
- Does the study have internal and external validity?
- Are the analytical techniques appropriate for the theory and research questions and were they applied appropriately.
Results (for empirical papers)
- Are the results reported in an understandable way?
- Are there alternative explanations for the results, and if so, are these adequately controlled for in the analyses?
Contribution
- Does the submission make a value-added contribution to existing research?
- Does the submission stimulate thought or debate?
- Do the authors discuss the implications of the work for the scientific and practice community?

^*: guidelines were adapted from the Academy of Management reviewer guidelines for the Academy’s Annual Meeting.