Academy earns own 'best reviewer'

  • Published
  • By Butch Wehry
  • U.S. Air Force Academy Public Affairs
Maj. John Martin earned a "Best Reviewer" award from the Business Policy and Strategy Division of the Academy of Management Aug. 10. 

The award, presented to the top five percent of more than 2,500 reviewers for the Academy of Management Conference in Chicago, Ill., recognizes reviewers for the quality and constructive feedback given to authors who submitted manuscripts. 

This is the second time Major Martin has received this award in the last three years. 

"The Business Policy and Strategy Division within the Academy of Management rewards reviews that are constructive in nature and developmental in tone," said the best reviewer from Eugene, Ore. "During the blind review process, authors receive feedback from reviewers. After the authors review the feedback, they rate the quality of that reviewer's review. The Business Policy and Strategy Division of the Academy of Management uses this rating as one piece of information when making the Best Reviewer Award decisions." 

An acquisitions manager in the operational Air Force, the 14-year Air Force officer instructs international management, strategic management, and power and influence. 

The assistant professor of management and deputy for Academics identified areas that might make pencilsharpening worthwhile. 

"Treat the authors with respect," he said. "They have spent a lot of time developing a manuscript that they think will make an intellectual contribution to the field of management. As a result, reviewers need to use a positive tone when writing their review." 

Provide constructive feedback, said the award winner. When a reviewer finds an inconsistency or an area to improve, they should make suggestions on how the manuscript can be improved. 

"When possible, point authors to examples of published articles that serve as exemplars for the work they are trying to accomplish," the major said. 

He favors using the sandwich approach. 

"Begin by complimenting their efforts, then follow with suggestions for improvement, and end with some sort of motivating closing comments," Major Martin said. 

And last but not least: Treat the authors as you would want to be treated by a reviewer. 

"I do not think most people dread reviews," he said. "Rather, I think most scholars want to see what great ideas people are studying and trying to introduce to the field of management. Given the time constraints of our busy jobs, conducting a review is not always our highest priority so finding the time to conduct a value-added review is often a challenge." 

He has a "don't list": 

-- Don't tell them how poor their work is! 
-- Don't tell them to find another line of work. 
-- Don't tell them their work is only useful at one of those "lower tier" conferences. 
-- Don't accidentally share your confidential comments, which are intended for the editor, with the authors. 
-- Don't write a review that is longer than the manuscript the authors submitted! 

The secrets to his success? 

"Great mentors, both in my PhD program and in the Academy's Department of Management, have helped me approach the review process with a tactful tone," Major Martin said.