Reviewer Guidelines

* We referrred to the Academy of Management’s guidelines for reviewers in developing ours.

Using a Constructive and Developmental Tone

Please ensure your comments are constructive. If you identify issues that can’t be easily resolved, offer the authors suggestions on how they might enhance their submission as they continue their research. It’s also important to recognize the strengths of a manuscript to help authors improve their work. One of the key contributions of IACMR reviewers is aiding the development of research from those who submit their work. The more detailed your review, the more beneficial it will be for the authors.

Regardless of your evaluation of the work, treat the authors with respect. Remember, with your review you ultimately represent the IACMR. Be open-minded to different theoretical frameworks used by authors and judge manuscripts based on their ability to stimulate thinking and discussion. Additionally, consider that many IACMR members come from varied disciplinary backgrounds and research traditions with diverse theoretical and methodological approaches.

Providing Timely Reviews in a Professional Format

A good review is typically one single-spaced page in length. A review without proper comments is unacceptable. You must submit your review within the provided timelines, as there is no flexibility in the program schedule. Ensure your review is structured by separating and numbering your comments. Where relevant, cite specific page numbers, passages, tables, and figures. Do not include any information that reveals your identity, and do not attempt to discover the identity of the authors. This maintains the integrity of the “double-blind” review process.

Specific Areas to Consider

The following points are suggested criteria to help you structure your evaluations of paper submissions.


  • Does the paper address an issue relevant to one or more communities of scholars studying Chinese management?
  • Is there a clear and well-motivated research question?
  • Is the research question interesting?
  • Does the research question have potential to extend the relevant theoretical conversation?
  • After reading the introduction, are you motivated to continue reading?

Theory and Theoretical Concepts 

  • Does the submission present a clear, well-developed, and articulated theoretical framework or approach? If multiple theoretical approaches are combined, is their relationship clear?
  • Are the key theoretical concepts clearly defined and consistently used?
  • Is the logic behind the hypotheses persuasive?
  • Is the existing literature appropriately reflected, or are critical references missing?
  • Do the hypotheses or propositions logically follow from the theory?
  • Do you have constructive ideas to help the authors further develop their work?

Method (Empirical Papers) 

  • Are the research design, case selection, sample, and other methodological aspects explained and justified? Are the phenomena of interest captured well?
  • Are the sample and variables appropriate for the hypotheses?
  • Are the data collected in a manner that is appropriate, transparent, and well justified, consistent with the applied analytical techniques?
  • Does the study have internal and external validity?
  • Are the analytical techniques and procedures appropriate for the research question and consistent with the theory and data collection?
  • Is the analysis transparent, justified, and convincing?

Findings (Empirical Papers)

  • Are the results reported in an understandable way?
  • Do the findings provide a compelling, plausible, and consistent interpretation of the data?
  • Do the authors offer novel findings? Are they transferable to other settings? Are findings engaged with existing theoretical insights?
  • Do the authors discuss the limitations of their work and show reflexivity about possible alternative explanations and analytical orientations?
  • Are alternative explanations for the results adequately controlled for in the analyses?

Line of Argument (Conceptual Papers) 

  • Is the conceptual argumentation clear, logical, and convincing?
  • Is the reasoning precise, concise, and elegant?

Findings (Conceptual Papers)  

  • Does the submission offer novel conceptual insights that are clearly spelled out and well positioned in relation to established ideas in the literature?
  • Do the authors discuss the scope of the novel insights?


  • Does the submission make a value-added contribution to existing research?
  • Does it stimulate thought or debate?
  • Do the authors discuss the implications of their work for the scientific and/or practice community?
  • Does the submission have implications for relevant stakeholders such as organizational members, managers, policy makers, and members of broader society?
  • Does it produce novel insights, interpretations, or explanations that extend the literature?