Information for Reviewers
Familiarize yourself with the EMR
- Read EMR’s Aims and Scope
Familiarize yourself with the Empirical Paper Format
- The Empirical paper format is very different from other journals.
- Because the EMR is a journal for practitioner-scholar knowledge, its structure for 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 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 paper are outlined here.
- The policy of EMR (http://emr.case.edu/editor/) 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). Both types of scholars participate in the review process and can review all sections although the traditional scholar should focus on the sections with the scholarly voice and the practitioner-scholar on those with the practitioner voice.
EMR reviewers use an electronic review form made available within the electronic submission system. The form consists of the following sections:
- Summary of article’s contribution
- Article strengths
- Article weaknesses
- Comments to the Author
When you write your review
- Be Constructive — Don't just point out problems, also point out solutions.
- Be Concise — Try not to cover the same ground in multiple comments; consolidate your coverage of a given theme in a single point.
- Be Polite and Conversational — Be "author friendly" in your tone, and use terms like "you" instead of "the authors."
- Identify Some Strengths — Open your review with what you liked, before focusing the bulk of your review on your criticisms and concerns.
- Non-English Native Authors — You will sometimes be asked to review submissions from authors whose native language is not English. In those cases, distinguish between the quality of the writing and the quality of the ideas that the writing conveys. Those ideas may be good, even if they are not expressed well.
- Be On Time — EMR prides itself on cycle time. It is important to return your review on time so that the Associate Editor can guarantee the authors a quick turnaround.