How long should a review take?
Average time from submission until a decision is received has been averaging approximately 60 days for new submissions (not counting desk rejects). If you do not see your response within three months, send a note to jom@ama.org and ask about the status of your paper. If you do not get a response from that query within a week, notify the editor.
How can I ask the editor a question?
You can ask a question of an editor at any time. E-mail is the appropriate venue for the editor at Ajay.Kohli@mgt.gatech.edu.
What strategies should an author use in listing preferred or nonpreferred reviewers?
Select people who you admire and who you believe will give you valuable feedback. If you believe a particular reviewer will be hostile, please indicate why in a letter to the editor. Readers who have helped you with the paper should be acknowledged with a footnote on the title page of the paper. Likely reviewers with whom you have a conflict of interest should not be listed as either a preferred reviewer or nonpreferred reviewer but should be noted in your letter to the editor.
What defines a conflict of interest between an author and a reviewer?
First, a guest editor (chosen from the former editors of JM) will make decisions regarding any manuscripts submitted by the editor’s current faculty colleagues, his or her current or former doctoral students, or his or her current business associates. Second, the editor will attempt to avoid similar conflicts among reviewers of an author’s paper. Third, for all award voting conducted by the Editorial Board, voters will be prohibited from voting for their own papers or for those of colleagues at the same university or company, and the editor’s papers will not be eligible for any award during the editor’s term that is selected by the Editorial Board that the editor appointed.
Should a reviewer agree to do a review if there is a known conflict of interest?
If a reviewer feels uncomfortable reviewing the work of a coauthor or colleague, it is appropriate to decline from reviewing. If that is not an issue, the reviewer should indicate the nature of the conflict in the comments to the editor. Some of the best reviews are by people who know each other’s work.
Why are authors and reviewers double blind?
There are two advantages to the double-blind system. First, reviewers are more likely to positively evaluate articles from well-known authors, so blinding helps limit this bias. Second, authors and reviewers might find their roles reversed in the future. An author submitting a paper today could be serving as a reviewer tomorrow, and those responsibilities might include evaluating individuals who have previously commented on his or her work. The field is small enough that reviewers might reward those who have been favorable to their work and punish those who have been unfavorable. Both responses seriously compromise the integrity of the review process.
How should I respond to a person who asks whether I was a reviewer on a paper?
Indicate politely that it is inappropriate for you to answer that question.
Should I try to figure out who the reviewers are to help craft my responses?
It is natural to try to identify the source of a review. However, it has been proved that people are relatively poor at identifying the reviewer, and misattributions often cause more harm than good. Thus, rather than trying to figure out the identity of the reviewer, focus on understanding the logical basis of the criticisms.
I received the decision letter and reviewers' comments for my paper, but not all the reviewers contributed comments. Why is that?"
Reviewers may decline to review for any number of reasons, usually stemming from time constraints of a personal or professional nature. Authors should not interpret one or more reviewers’ declining as a reflection of any negative reaction to a paper. (Please note that the JM database sometimes lists as completed reviews reviewers who have actually just declined to review the manuscript. Authors always are presented all of the completed reviews.)