Information for Associate Editors
Members of the EMR editorial board are invited by the Editor in Chief to serve as Associate Editors to manage the review of a manuscript. The editorial board is posted on the EMR web site. Associate Editors serve a three year term. At the start of EMR, there were 50 board members.
Editorial Board Members
Members of the EMR board consist of faculty teaching in doctoral management programs for engaged scholarship, faculty teaching in universities who have a demonstrated interest in engaged scholarship, and alumni of engaged scholarship doctoral programs (i.e., practitioner-scholars).
Role of Associate Editor
EMR follows a distributed review which is monitored by Associate Editors. Each article will be reviewed first by the editor-in-chief. If considered within the scope of the journal, the article is then sent to an Associate Editor who has the responsibility for identifying and contacting three referees through the electronic submission system. Reviewers can be members of the Editorial Board but can also be outside the board. It is the intent of EMR that whenever possible that the three referees consist of two faculty members (at least one of which is board member) and an alumni reviewer (i.e., practitioner-scholars). Reviewers should be selected based on their expertise in the area of the submitted paper.
Unique Features of Empirical Paper Format
In particular, the Associate Editor’s assessment of reviews on empirical papers should consider its unique characteristics. The structure of the empirical paper has two unique features that distinguish it from traditional scholarly journals as well as practitioner journals. First, it has a distinct format with specific sections and sub-sections. Second, within each section and/or sub-section, as applicable, the author must use the designated voice. A Power Point file with slides that provide more specific guidance about the two unique features of an empirical paper (its format and its two voices) can be found here.
Each section of an empirical paper requires the author(s) to speak in either a scholarly voice or a practitioner voice. The scholarly voice uses controlled and technically precise language, whose priority is on knowledge development and methodology. The practitioner voice uses language found in everyday contexts within the problem of practice, whose priority is on the solution to a real-world management problem, and is intuitively understandable and immediately reusable by the manager for his/her context(s). The sections of the empirical are outlined here.
Since the policy of EMR is that reviewers consist of both faculty (career scholars graduating from traditional doctorate programs) and practitioner-scholars (such as managers and executives who are graduates from EDBAC executive doctorate or similar programs), the Associate Editor should consider both types of individuals because while they both can review all sections of an empirical paper, the traditional scholar should focus on the sections with the scholarly voice and the practitioner-scholar on those with the practitioner voice. The Associate Editor then has the task of integrating the reviews by traditional scholar and practitioner-scholar.
When feasible, the Associate Editor may include a doctoral student reviewer as part of the reviewing team. It is up to the Associate Editor whether to consider the student review in the Associate Editor’s recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. The purpose behind EMR’s desire to have student reviewers is provide the doctoral student exposure to ongoing research in their area of interest and to provide experience in critical thinking.
Student reviewers must be recommended by an EMR editorial board member.
- The student reviewer should be at least a 3rd year doctoral student in an executive doctoral program.
- Students must have review experience prior to being accepted as a student reviewer to EMR. This experience can be satisfied by reviewing AOM conference submissions or comparable scholarly conferences.
The student review process is exactly the same as the regular reviewer.