Strategizing and Operating Through Our Values: <i><scp>JMS</scp></i> at 50

Corbett, Andrew C.; Cornelissen, Joep; Delios, Andrew; Harley, Bill

doi:10.1111/joms.12041

Cited by 5 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But Alvesson and Sandberg (see also Corbett et al, 2014) go further, suggesting that the pressure to publish is forcing us into these "safe intellectual habitats" with the result that we end up doing "incremental rather than frame-bending research" because it "facilitates career advancement." What it doesn't do is generate "innovative and influential research .…”

Section: Silo Mentalitiesmentioning

confidence: 93%

OMT, Then and Now

Greenwood

2015

Journal of Management Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides an overview comparison of how organization and managemnt theory was practised 40 years ago with how it is done today. We are a much larger and more international community and our work has advanced in many excellent ways. Howevoer, an important difference is the nature of expectations placed upon scholars -which has led to narrow lines of research and overly formulaic ways of presenting results.

show abstract

Section: Silo Mentalitiesmentioning

confidence: 93%

OMT, Then and Now

Greenwood

2015

Journal of Management Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since 2010, the co‐editors have tried hard to ensure that the review process is rigorous in ensuring that good papers are published in the Journal, and those with limited potential are rejected, so that authors can develop their work for submission elsewhere (see Corbett et al . ). Based on our analysis of rejection letters from associate editors, the following are the main reasons why papers were not considered suitable for publication in IJMR : Weak analysis of the literature – too descriptive (21%) Poor coverage of the literature with major gaps in key areas (17%) Focus of the paper unclear and key concepts poorly defined (13%) Paper did not make a unique contribution (12%) Paper too similar to existing literature reviews (9%) Topic too broad/narrow and paper poorly organized (7%) Omitted key journals from review (5%) Methods poorly explained or inappropriate (5%) Limited research agenda (5%). …”

Section: Ijmr: the Last Four Yearsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Leading journals often include editorials in which the basic issues of style and presentation are discussed as well as the more complex topic of how to make a theoretical contribution (Corbett et al . ; Delbridge and Fiss ; Fulmer ; Özbilgin , ). Booth et al .…”

Section: Writing An Analytical Literature Review (For Ijmr)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Editorial: The Future of Writing and Reviewing for IJMR

Jones

Gatrell

2014

Int J Management Reviews

192

181

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this editorial, the co-editors-in-chief undertake a number of tasks related to International Journal of Management Reviews (IJMR). They begin by reviewing the objectives set out by Macpherson and Jones in their 2010 editorial (IJMR, 12, pp. 107-113). The benefits of publishing in IJMR for scholars at various stages of their careers are then discussed. The section outlining the progress of IJMR over the last four years sets out the main reasons why so many papers are desk rejected by the co-editors. The main criteria for writing an analytical literature review of the type that the editors aspire to publish in the Journal are then discussed. The objectives are not simply to reduce the number of desk rejects, but also to encourage authors to be more ambitious and innovative in their approaches to reviews of the literature.

show abstract

“…Altogether they were to contribute to the development in the 1980s and the 1990s of what was to be dubbed as European‐style research (Lampel, ; Meyer and Boxenbaum, ). In contrast to the one dominant in the USA, the European style has been associated with a strong orientation towards qualitative research (Baum, ; Bluhm et al., ; Lampel, ) and, intellectually, with ‘the more extensive social science‐ and philosophy‐oriented grounding of arguments’ which Meyer and Boxenbaum (, p. 740) have labelled as ‘European‐ness’ (see also Corbett et al., ; Lampel, ).…”

Section: Centres and Peripheries In The History Of Management And Orgmentioning

confidence: 99%

Centres and Peripheries: Research Styles and Publication Patterns in ‘Top’USJournals and theirEuropean Alternatives, 1960–2010

Üsdiken

2014

J Management Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In view of recent literature, suggesting a growing international ascendancy of US‐style scholarship but also a decreasing US dominance in journal publications, I ask two questions with regard to management and organization studies: (1) whether there has been an increasing convergence towards US‐style research; and (2) whether the purported decline in the relative amount of US publications has been uniform across leading journals based in the USA and Europe. In addressing these questions, I take a historical perspective and draw upon the centre–periphery model of international scholarship, arguing that convergence or fragmentation in styles of research and variations in publication patterns have evolved through the interplay between processes of influence by the centre (i.e., the USA) and imitative or competitive responses by the periphery. Empirically, the study spans the period 1960–2010 and is confined to ‘top’ US‐based journals and their main European alternatives. The findings answer the first question with a ‘no, other than a greater tendency towards the US‐style when educational or collaborative ties to the USA are involved and by the recently emerging parts of the periphery’. The second question again is answered with a ‘no, the decline has been much less in “top” US journals relative to the ones based in Europe’.

show abstract

Strategizing and Operating Through Our Values: JMS at 50

Cited by 5 publications

References 11 publications

OMT, Then and Now

OMT, Then and Now

Editorial: The Future of Writing and Reviewing for IJMR

Centres and Peripheries: Research Styles and Publication Patterns in ‘Top’USJournals and theirEuropean Alternatives, 1960–2010

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About