Thank you for your interest in signing up to be a reviewer for the 58th Annual Meeting of the Eastern Academy of Management. We would like to thank those of you who have reviewed in the past and welcome those of you who are new to reviewing. We recommend going through the Reviewer Guidelines, the quality of the Annual Meeting Program is based upon the reviews you provide. Thank you in advance for the service you are willing to offer as a reviewer.
How to sign up to be a Reviewer: Please visit https://www.openconf.org/EAM2021/openconf.php and follow the steps below.
1. Go to Review and Program Committee
2. Use keycode: review to signup (please note that the key is case sensitive).
Setting the Tone of the Review
Please keep your comments constructive. 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. Try to provide the authors with constructive ideas for how they might improve upon their submission as they develop their research. It is also important to try to identify the strengths of a manuscript to help the author(s) improve their work.
Please try to be open-minded to different authors using different theoretical frameworks. Try to judge manuscripts based on how well they stimulate thinking and discussion. Keep in mind that many members come from disciplinary backgrounds and research traditions with diverse theoretical and methodological orientations.
You must submit your review within the timelines provided. There is no slack in the program schedule.
A good review is typically 1 single-spaced page in length. Provide a structured review by separating and numbering comments. Also, where appropriate, cite specific page numbers, passages, tables, and figures in your review.
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.
Areas to Consider
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.
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?
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?
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?
Does the proposal reflect the overall level of quality an audience would expect when attending a symposium?
Would the proposed session be of interest to a sufficient number of members?
Does the proposal offer sufficient innovation and contribution to warrant program space?
Professional Development Workshops
Please think about the following five questions as they pertain to a Professional Development Workshop.
William L. Dougan of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, has provided an additional resource in the form of A Guide for Creating and Managing a Good Professional Development Workshop.
These guidelines are adopted from the Academy of Management Reviewer Guidelines
Through your reviews you have the opportunity to help the authors and to improve the quality of the research. Below are some general guidelines for writing good Poster reviews:
Your job is to write detailed reviews, even for excellent proposals. Tell the authors why you liked their proposal, so that they know what made it successful.
If you believe that the proposal is poorly written or poorly thought-out, provide CONSTRUCTIVE criticism to help the authors.
The best reviews clearly justify the reviewer’s choice of rating. The least valuable review gives a low score with no written comments. This simply tells the authors that they have been unsuccessful, with no indication of how or why. It is also of no help to the members of the Program Committee, who are charged with making program decisions based on your reviews.
Posters should provide an opportunity for an INFORMAL presentation featuring “give and take” with conference attendees. Feedback on whether this seems feasible is helpful.
While a poster presentation should be sound and well-supported, it need not be complete: a poster presentation should be a good way to discuss and receive feedback on a WORK IN PROGRESS that has NOT BEEN FULLY DEVELOPED into a paper.