FROM THE EDITORS
致编辑
（注：这里“FROM THE EDITORS”是英文标题，通常译为“致编辑”或“编辑寄语”等，但根据结构规则要求，若为标题类且属于需要翻译的内容，此处按常见译法处理。）
不过严格遵循示例，仅翻译人类可读内容，原输入是“# FROM THE EDITORS”，其中“FROM THE EDITORS”是核心可译文本，标题符号“#”保留，所以正确输出应为：
致编辑
DEMYSTIFYING AND NORMALIZING THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPERIENCE OF WRITING FOR AMR: A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE HIGHS, LOWS, AND SUGGESTED COPING STRATEGIES
解密并规范AMR写作的心理体验：对高潮、低谷及建议应对策略的质性分析
JONATHAN BUNDY1 Arizona State University JONATHAN BUNDY1 亚利桑那州立大学
ABBIE J. SHIPP Texas Christian University ABBIE J. SHIPP 德克萨斯基督教大学
SHELLEY BRICKSON University of Illinois at Chicago 雪莱·布里克森 伊利诺伊大学芝加哥分校
So, you’re thinking about writing a theory paper for Academy of Management Review (AMR) and wondering “What am I getting myself into?” Or perhaps you have already taken the plunge and you’re surprised by the intensity of the (not wholly pleasant!) emotional experience at different stages of the process. You might be wondering, “Are these ups and downs ’normal?” and “If publishing theory is such a ride, how can I become more resilient as a theorist?” 那么，你正在考虑为《管理学会评论》（AMR）撰写一篇理论论文，并想知道“我这是在自讨苦吃吗？”或者，你可能已经下定决心，却惊讶于在研究过程不同阶段所经历的强烈（并非全然愉快！）情感体验。你或许会疑惑，“这些起起落落是‘正常’的吗？”以及“如果发表理论就像一场冒险，我该如何成为一名更坚韧的理论家？”
In this editorial, we seek to uncover and demystify the psychological experiences of writing for AMR. What does it feel like to write new theory? What is the emotional experience of a revise and resubmit (R&R) at AMR? What goes through authors’ heads when they receive a final decision, whether a rejection or an acceptance? In considering these questions, we hope to normalize the common ups and downs of those who submit to AMR. In other words, we want to say: you are not alone! Your lived experiences with the journal (e.g., excitement, anxiety, elation, frustration, or anger) are shared, even among current and former editors. As a result, we seek to make the emotional journey of writing theory more explicit to learn from others’ challenges and triumphs along the path of peer review at AMR. 在这篇社论中，我们试图揭示并阐明撰写AMR（《美国管理学会评论》）论文的心理体验。撰写新理论时是什么感觉？在AMR经历“修改后重投（R&R）”的情感体验又是怎样的？当作者收到最终决定（无论是拒稿还是录用）时，他们内心在想什么？在思考这些问题时，我们希望让向AMR投稿者的常见起伏变得“正常化”。换句话说，我们想说：你并不孤单！你在期刊中的亲身经历（例如兴奋、焦虑、狂喜、沮丧或愤怒）是被大家共享的，即使是现任和前任编辑也有类似感受。因此，我们希望更明确地阐述撰写理论的情感历程，以便从AMR同行评审过程中他人的挑战与成功中汲取经验。
With that goal in mind, we polled the current AMR Editorial Review Board (ERB), seeking their insights on the psychological experiences of AMR writing. In doing so, we uncovered not just how the theory writing process is commonly experienced but also how it can be improved with coping strategies that develop resiliency. Our hope is that, by identifying these experiences and strategies, the challenges and obstacles of writing good theory will become more manageable for both new and experienced members of the community. 怀着这一目标，我们对现任抗菌药物管理（AMR）编辑评审委员会（ERB）进行了民意调查，以寻求他们对AMR写作心理体验的见解。在此过程中，我们不仅发现了理论写作过程的常见体验，还发现了如何通过培养韧性的应对策略来改进这一过程。我们希望，通过识别这些体验和策略，撰写优秀理论时的挑战和障碍将对社区中的新成员和有经验的成员都变得更容易克服。
THE SURVEY
调查
We invited current members of the AMR ERB to participate in our survey, including many former editors and associate editors (AEs) on the board. We received responses from 75 individuals who reported considerable diversity in terms of research focus (e.g., macro vs. micro), career stage (e.g., assistant, associate, full), teaching load, and demographics (e.g., gender, geographic region, and underrepresented group status in one’s country of residence). For each stage of the AMR publication process—initial submission, R&R, rejection, acceptance—we asked participants to describe positive (the “highs”) and negative (the “lows”) emotional experiences. We also asked what advice they would give to authors to “cope” with these ups and downs. 我们邀请了AMR编辑评审委员会（ERB）的现任成员参与我们的调查，其中包括董事会中的许多前编辑和副编辑（AEs）。我们收到了75人的回应，他们在研究重点（如宏观与微观）、职业阶段（如助理、副、正教授）、教学工作量以及人口统计特征（如性别、地理区域和居住国的代表性不足群体身份）方面表现出相当大的多样性。对于AMR出版流程的每个阶段——初始投稿、修改与重投（R&R）、拒稿、录用——我们要求参与者描述积极（“高潮”）和消极（“低谷”）的情感体验。我们还询问了他们会给作者什么建议来“应对”这些起伏。
Our respondents did not disappoint, providing us with 52 (single-spaced) pages and 31,000 words of feedback! Some respondents were relatively brief, while others felt compelled to write multiple paragraphs and relate deeply personal experiences. We were overwhelmed by the collective response and feel very appreciative of the engagement from the AMR community. 我们的受访者没有让我们失望，提供了52页（单倍行距）的反馈内容和31,000字的反馈！有些受访者的反馈相对简短，而另一些则觉得有必要写多个段落，并讲述非常个人化的经历。我们被集体的回应所感动，非常感谢AMR社区的积极参与。
We enthusiastically dove into the data. First, we independently coded a subset of responses and met to discuss emerging codes. We then divided the data by question with each author taking lead on a coding scheme for highs, lows, or coping strategies, respectively, with regular input from each other. Although there was certainly variation in the reported experiences and suggested coping strategies,2 our analysis revealed a number of shared experiences throughout the theory writing journey. We report those shared experiences below, and, as much as possible, let the respondents’ voices narrate the story. 我们满怀热情地投入到数据中。首先，我们各自对一部分回应进行编码，并开会讨论新出现的编码。然后，我们按问题划分数据，每位作者分别负责“高点”“低点”或“应对策略”的编码方案，彼此定期提供反馈。尽管受访者报告的经历和建议的应对策略存在明显差异，2但我们的分析显示，在理论撰写过程中存在许多共同经历。我们将在下文报告这些共同经历，并尽可能让受访者的声音来讲述这个故事。
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPERIENCE OF WRITING FOR AMR
为AMR写作的心理体验
Before presenting details, we note three interesting patterns with the psychological “highs” and “lows” experienced throughout the publication process at AMR. First, many positive and negative experiences reemerged in multiple phases of the publication process. For example, pride in the accomplishment of the work was a repeated positive experience across each stage (even rejection!), while frustration was a commonly repeated negative experience. When these recurring experiences resurfaced in new phases, they often moved between the psychological foreground and background and took distinct forms. We outline below how the highs and lows of writing theory for AMR both recur and evolve in form from one publication phase to another. A second pattern we noticed was that these emotional experiences seemed to stem from one of two sources—from the work of theory writing itself or from aspects of the publication process. As such, we organize and label the tables and text according to this distinction. The third pattern we detected was that respondents felt the experience of writing for AMR often differed from that of other journals. We share insights contrasting the highs and lows of writing theory for AMR with experiences at other journals, which suggested that the highs sometimes feel higher and the lows sometimes feel lower when writing for AMR. 在介绍具体内容之前，我们注意到在AMR整个发表过程中，心理上的“高峰”和“低谷”存在三个有趣的模式。首先，许多积极和消极的经历在发表过程的多个阶段中反复出现。例如，对工作成果的自豪感是每个阶段（甚至是被拒阶段！）都重复出现的积极体验，而挫败感则是常见的重复出现的消极体验。当这些反复出现的经历在新的阶段再次出现时，它们往往会在心理的前景和背景之间转换，并呈现出不同的形式。我们将在下文概述AMR理论写作的高峰和低谷如何从一个发表阶段到另一个阶段既重复出现又在形式上有所演变。我们注意到的第二个模式是，这些情感体验似乎源于两个来源之一——理论写作本身的工作，或者是发表过程的某些方面。因此，我们根据这一区别对表格和文本进行组织和标注。我们发现的第三个模式是，受访者认为为AMR写作的体验往往与其他期刊不同。我们分享了将AMR理论写作的高峰和低谷与其他期刊的经历进行对比的见解，这表明在为AMR写作时，高峰有时会感觉更高，低谷有时会感觉更低。
To report our findings, we begin with the initial submission and then proceed through other possible stages—R&R, rejection, and acceptance. For each stage, we report the highs and lows experienced followed by suggested coping strategies for handling these positive and negative psychological experiences. We italicize emerging themes. Respondents are identified by participant number in parentheses after longer quotations (e.g., #1). For convenience, we include a summary table for each stage to highlight themes related to highs and lows along with illustrative quotes beyond those in the text. 为了报告我们的研究结果，我们首先从最初的提交开始，然后依次经过其他可能的阶段——修改与重审（R&R）、拒稿和录用。对于每个阶段，我们会报告经历的起伏，并随后提供应对这些积极和消极心理体验的建议应对策略。我们会将新兴主题以斜体形式标出。受访者通过括号中的参与者编号来识别（例如，#1）。为方便起见，我们为每个阶段都包含一个总结表格，以突出与起伏相关的主题以及文本中未包含的说明性引语。
The Initial Submission
初始提交
Psychological experiences reported by respondents at the initial submission stage were mixed in terms of highs versus lows but skewed toward the highs. Both highs and lows were dominated by experiences derived from the work of theory writing itself, with those emerging from the publication process residing more in the background. 受访者在初始提交阶段报告的心理体验有高有低，但偏向于积极体验。无论是积极体验还是消极体验，都主要源于理论写作本身的工作，而来自发表过程的体验则更多处于次要地位。
Highs. By far, the psychological highs upon first submission seem to be primarily inspired by the actual work of writing theory. The most commonly reported high, satisfaction in the intellectual work, pertains to delight or joy in solving puzzles and achieving clarity. Many board members described finding joy when the pieces of theory “click,” allowing for a sense of “completeness,” “clarity,” or “fit.” Responses suggested that this intellectual experience may be particularly elevated when writing for AMR, such as: 高潮。到目前为止，首次提交时的心理高潮似乎主要源于写作理论的实际工作。最常被提及的高潮——即智力工作中的满足感——与解决难题和实现清晰理解时的愉悦或快乐有关。许多董事会成员描述，当理论的各个部分“串联起来”，带来一种“完整感”、“清晰感”或“契合感”时，他们会感到愉悦。回应表明，这种智力体验在为AMR写作时可能会尤为强烈，例如：
I find it very stimulating to write a “theory paper” in general, but particularly to AMR. Writing a theory paper is intellectually challenging and I thrive in trying to “master” those challenges. It is about being able to say something new and original that will make people think differently about something. (#54) 我发现写一篇“理论论文”总体上非常有启发性，尤其是针对AMR（抽象意义表示）。撰写理论论文在智力上具有挑战性，而我恰恰在尝试“攻克”这些挑战中茁壮成长。这关乎能够提出一些新颖且原创的观点，从而让人们对某事物产生不同的思考。（#54）
Meanwhile, the second most common high, excitement in ideas, also connected directly to the work of theory writing. Excitement at this stage took the form of the thrill of generating and discovering new ideas. Responses highlighted how the freedom engendered by theory writing—to be “creative,” “play with ideas,” and discover “breakthroughs”—produced a pure excitement unique to this kind of writing. Indeed, the intellectual challenge of theory writing, identified in the first theme, appears to accentuate its excitement, as illustrated by the following: 同时，第二种最常见的兴奋点在于思想的激发，这也与理论写作的工作直接相关。在这一阶段，兴奋表现为产生和发现新思想的快感。回应强调，理论写作带来的自由——可以“富有创造力”、“玩味思想”并发现“突破”——产生了这种写作独有的纯粹兴奋感。事实上，第一个主题中提到的理论写作的智力挑战，似乎强化了其带来的兴奋感，如下文所述：
Writing theory can be exhilarating but also challenging. Unlike an empirical study, writing theory is more abstract and its worth can often be in the eye of the beholder. So, there is a certain excitement that goes along with crafting a theoretical article. (#51) 写作理论既令人振奋，也颇具挑战性。与实证研究不同，写作理论更加抽象，其价值往往因人而异。因此，撰写一篇理论性文章会带来一种特定的兴奋感。(#51)
There were two other psychological highs stemming from the work of theory writing itself. One was an internal sense of pride in accomplishment. Several respondents expressed pride in the particular “accomplishment” or “achievement” of writing a theory paper in light of its inherent challenges “independent of possible publication.” Finally, in a theme that only surfaced at the initial submission stage, a handful of respondents also reported a high of dedication to the work. They noted feeling sufficiently “passionate” and “motivated” by a topic that they felt certain they would stick with it, and that their “devotion” would outlive any obstacles in the review process. 理论写作本身的工作还带来了另外两种心理上的愉悦感。一种是完成任务后的内在自豪感。一些受访者提到，考虑到理论论文写作本身固有的挑战（“与可能的发表无关”），他们为自己完成了这一特定的“成就”或“成果”而感到自豪。最后，在一个仅在最初提交阶段才出现的主题中，少数受访者还提到了一种投入工作的愉悦感。他们表示，自己对某个主题感到足够“热情”和“有动力”，并且确信会坚持下去，而且他们的“奉献精神”会超越评审过程中的任何障碍。
Beyond the predominance of work-derived highs, two other positive states at submission stemmed from the publication process, specifically the experience of submitting the initial manuscript. Some reported feeling hopeful about what lies ahead, such as progressing to the R&R stage or having an impact through a published paper. As one respondent noted, an inflated sense of optimism may even be necessary to undertake the daunting task of writing theory! Other respondents reported relief after the first submission by finally, after a “long road,” getting the manuscript “off [their] plate.” 除了工作带来的成就感之外，提交时还有另外两种积极状态源于发表过程，特别是提交初稿的经历。一些人对未来感到乐观，比如期待进入修改再提交（R&R）阶段，或者希望自己的论文能产生影响。正如一位受访者所说，为了承担撰写理论这一艰巨任务，甚至可能需要一种膨胀的乐观感！其他受访者则表示，在经历了“漫长的道路”后，终于把手稿“从自己的日程中移除”，第一次提交后感到如释重负。
Lows. Interestingly, although lows were less pronounced than highs at the initial submission stage, they were present in some capacity for almost everyone. As with the highs, lows from the work itself were more prominent than those derived from the publication process. Among these, the most dominant low was a sense of frustration in the work of writing theory, often expressed as a feeling of being “stuck,” a struggle to “write clearly” and “draw boundaries,” and an uncertainty of “when you’ve done enough.” Many respondents also expressed this frustration as a sense of being overwhelmed: 低谷。有趣的是，尽管在最初提交阶段，低谷的表现不如高峰明显，但几乎每个人都在某种程度上经历过低谷。与高峰类似，来自工作本身的低谷比来自出版过程的低谷更为突出。其中，最主要的低谷是写作理论工作中产生的挫败感，常表现为一种“停滞不前”的感觉，一种难以“清晰表达”和“划定界限”的挣扎，以及对“何时已完成足够工作”的不确定感。许多受访者还将这种挫败感描述为一种被压垮的感觉：
Beginning a theory paper can feel incredibly overwhelming. Where do you draw the boundaries around your topic? At what point do you get too much into the weeds? How do you do something truly new while still embedding it in extant theory? No matter how much thought you put into answering these questions or how many friendly reviews you get or anything else you’ve done to “perfect” your manuscript, you know that the reviewers will find plenty of flaws in it. (#3) 开始撰写理论论文可能会感到非常有压力。你的研究主题的边界在哪里？你何时会陷入过于细节的讨论？你如何在嵌入现有理论的同时做出真正新颖的贡献？无论你在回答这些问题上投入了多少思考，收到了多少友善的评论，或者为“完善”你的手稿做了其他任何事情，你都知道审稿人会发现其中的诸多不足。（#3）
Other lows related to the work itself were feelings of self-doubt and fatigue. Self-doubt was often expressed as a worry that more could have been done, or that the authors have missed something important. One respondent reported “recurring bouts of self-doubt” (#36) and another commented that they “sometimes vacillate between being confident that what I have to say is important and in worrying that what I have to say is not important at all” (#69). Fatigue was also common, with one person expressing that “the whole task of writing the paper was tiring although it was also intellectually stimulating” (#16). Respondents also reported feeling “exhausted,” “worn out,” “depleted,” and “strained” with the first submission. 与工作本身相关的其他低谷包括自我怀疑和疲惫感。自我怀疑常表现为担心自己本可以做得更多，或者认为自己遗漏了重要的内容。一位受访者提到“反复出现的自我怀疑”（#36），另一位则表示“有时会在确信自己的言论很重要和担心自己的言论根本不重要之间摇摆”（#69）。疲惫感也很常见，有人表示“写论文的整个过程很累人，尽管它在智力上也很有启发性”（#16）。受访者还提到在首次提交时感到“筋疲力尽”、“疲惫不堪”、“耗尽精力”和“紧张”。
While less prominent than lows stemming from the work, two lows were derived from the publication process. Most common was a sense of trepidation about how the manuscript would be received by reviewers. This emerged as a “nervousness” about reviewers’ reactions, worrying about the “flaws” that reviewers would find, and even anxiety about which AE or reviewers the manuscript would receive, as highlighted here: 虽然不如工作带来的低谷那么突出，但有两个低谷源于发表过程。最常见的是对稿件会如何被审稿人接受的忐忑感。这种感觉表现为对审稿人反应的“紧张”，担心审稿人会发现“缺陷”，甚至对稿件会被哪位AE（编辑）或审稿人收到感到焦虑，正如此处所强调的：
There is a lot of anxiety associated with submitting an initial manuscript. Your chances of acceptance are never worse. What will others think? You leave the result of your work over years in the hands of four unknown people. (#67) 提交初稿会带来很多焦虑。你的录用几率不会比现在更糟。别人会怎么想？你把自己多年的心血成果交到四个陌生人手中。（#67）
This sense of trepidation seemed exaggerated in the AMR or theory writing experience, reflecting a concern about fewer premier outlets for theory papers, making writing for AMR especially risky. For example: 这种忐忑不安的感觉在AMR或理论写作经历中似乎被夸大了，反映出对理论论文优质发表渠道减少的担忧，这使得为AMR写作尤其具有风险。例如：
I also felt substantial fear at different points during the writing process. I was making a huge investment in a paper, but knew there was a decent chance the paper would be rejected. I also worried about what would happen if my paper got rejected at AMR as there are not as many outlets for theoretical pieces as there are for empirical work, and I worried about the career implications for me if that were to happen. (#32) 在写作过程中的不同阶段，我也感到了强烈的恐惧。我在一篇论文上投入了巨大的精力，但知道这篇论文很有可能被拒。我还担心如果我的论文在《美国经济评论》（AMR）被拒会发生什么，因为理论类文章的发表渠道不如实证类研究那么多，而且我担心如果这种情况发生，会对我的职业生涯产生影响。（#32）
Finally, distinct from the above-noted frustration in the work was frustration toward the publication process. In particular, a frustration with others was directed at coauthors, advisors, and sometimes at the Manuscript Central submission process itself. Some reported a lack of “proper guidance” or “real support.” Others noted that the submission process is a “headache,” or that it is “a lot of work to wrangle” coauthors, as noted here: 最后，与上述工作中的挫折不同的是，对出版流程的挫折感。特别是，对他人的不满指向了合著者、顾问，有时甚至是Manuscript Central的投稿流程本身。一些人表示缺乏“适当的指导”或“真正的支持”。另一些人指出，投稿流程是“一件令人头疼的事”，或者说“要协调合著者需要做大量工作”，如下所述：
There were some coauthor complications I didn’t manage well. A [coauthor] I had brought on wasn’t contributing much. I didn’t know how to handle it. 我在处理一些合著者的问题时做得不够好。我引入的一位合著者贡献不多，我也不知道该如何处理这种情况。
TABLE 1 Initial Submission Highs and Lows
表1 初始提交的最高值和最低值
TABLE 1 (Continued)
表1（续）
Vote: Each quote is followed by the participant number from our survey. 投票：每条引语后均附有我们调查中的参与者编号。
And, by definition, I assumed that a paper to AMR would get rejected, so was a bit depressed just on general principles. (#31) 而且，根据定义，我认为一篇关于AMR的论文会被拒稿，所以仅仅出于一般原则，我就有点沮丧。（#31）
How to cope with the initial submission: Expect a rollercoaster of emotions. With so many highs and lows associated with an initial submission, the editorial board members offered many insightful coping strategies. Overall, they recommended that authors seek to understand the process of writing theory, both the process of developing and submitting one’s paper and the emotions that unfold across this process. In terms of paper development, they suggested that authors always remember that “theory pieces are probably the most difficult forms of academic writing … Rigorous theory development for AMR takes time and commitment” (#71). And yet, they urged authors to remember that AMR is in the business of looking for great ideas; that is, “the Editor wants to find papers to publish” (#2). Although the process of developing a theory piece may be challenging, it can be worthwhile when you find an important topic that contributes to the AMR audience. 如何应对初次投稿：做好情绪起伏的准备。由于初次投稿往往伴随着诸多起伏，编委会成员提供了许多富有洞察力的应对策略。总体而言，他们建议作者要了解理论写作的过程，包括论文的撰写和提交过程，以及整个过程中会产生的情绪。在论文撰写方面，他们建议作者始终记住“理论文章可能是学术写作中最困难的形式……对AMR进行严格的理论开发需要时间和投入”（#71）。然而，他们也敦促作者记住，AMR的工作是寻找优秀的想法；也就是说，“编辑希望找到要发表的论文”（#2）。尽管理论文章的撰写过程可能具有挑战性，但当你发现一个重要的主题并能为AMR受众做出贡献时，这一切都是值得的。
Also common were suggestions to understand the emotions that all authors experience when writing theory. Acknowledging “uncertainty” and “lack of control,” our board members encouraged authors to “keep the long term in focus—the time between submission and decision is short in the big picture and a good idea will find its way to success somehow” (#27). This was especially true as respondents noted the increasing number of outlets to which one can submit theoretical papers, which was not the case in the past. They also recommended that authors “give yourself the time needed for it” (#4) to allow for the emotional roadblocks that arise in the common struggle to uncover strong theoretical insights. For example: 同样常见的建议是理解所有作者在撰写理论时所经历的情感。我们的董事会成员承认存在“不确定性”和“缺乏控制”，并鼓励作者“着眼长远——从提交到决定的时间在大局中很短，一个好的想法总会以某种方式走向成功”（#27）。这一点在受访者指出提交理论论文的渠道越来越多的情况下尤为明显，而这在过去并非如此。他们还建议作者“给自己所需的时间”（#4），以应对在共同努力挖掘有力理论见解过程中出现的情感障碍。例如：
Realize that you’re very likely to have periods where you’re lost and frustrated. That’s all part of the process of struggling to find and express new ideas in a coherent way. Actually, finding ideas is the easy part; 要意识到你很可能会经历迷茫和沮丧的时期。这都是以连贯的方式努力寻找和表达新想法过程中的一部分。实际上，找到想法是比较容易的部分；
expressing them in a systematic model-y way is the hard part: the devil is always in the details. (#70) 以系统性模型的方式表达它们是困难的部分：魔鬼总是在细节中。(#70)
Authors are also encouraged to get help from others, whether “relying on coauthors” (#39) for intellectual or social support, or “[sharing] your thoughts and writing with smart and supportive people who will push you to sharpen your ideas” (#8). In fact, obtaining “friendly reviews” was one of the most commonly cited strategies in this stage, although respondents also noted that friendly reviews should be sufficiently candid and critical (i.e., not too “friendly”). 作者也被鼓励向他人寻求帮助，无论是“依靠合著者”（#39）获取智力或社会支持，还是“[与聪明且支持你的人分享]你的想法和写作，这些人会促使你完善自己的观点”（#8）。事实上，在这一阶段，“友好的评论”是最常被提及的策略之一，尽管受访者也指出，友好的评论应该足够坦率和批判性（即不能过于“友好”）。
Beyond ideas for handling the process, the remainder of the coping strategies in the submission stage centered around the emotional challenges associated with early theory writing. To develop the right mindset, respondents recommended that authors balance confidence and humility, so they can “move forward with confidence” (#28) but also “learn” from the feedback provided in the friendly and formal review process. For example: 除了处理该过程的思路外，提交阶段的其余应对策略主要围绕早期理论写作中涉及的情感挑战展开。为了培养正确的心态，受访者建议作者平衡自信与谦逊，这样他们既能“满怀信心地前进”（#28），又能在友好且正式的评审过程提供的反馈中“学习”。例如：
Be prepared to get very tough feedback, but bear in mind that the feedback will likely make your paper better. (#37) 做好接受非常严厉反馈的准备，但请记住，这些反馈很可能会让你的论文更完善。（#37）
Interestingly, some board members recommended that authors should expect rejection. This “hope for the best and assume the worst” (#31) strategy is a form of defensive pessimism to avoid getting one’s hopes up. Although more pessimistic than other strategies, this advice is consistent with the suggestion to maintain one’s perspective because “even famous names get rejected” (#36). 有趣的是，一些董事会成员建议作者应该预料到被拒的情况。这种“抱最好的希望，做最坏的打算”（#31）的策略是一种防御性悲观主义，旨在避免抱过高的期望。尽管比其他策略更悲观，但这条建议与保持自身心态的建议一致，因为“即使是名人也会被拒”（#36）。
Lastly, respondents stated that authors must celebrate the accomplishment after submission, even if it is as simple as “going out for dinner” (#67). In the words of one respondent: 最后，受访者表示作者在提交后必须庆祝这一成就，即便只是像“出去吃晚餐”这样简单的事情（#67）。正如一位受访者所说：
Someone gave me great advice once as a way to cope with the possibility that lows can be relatively frequent .. Celebrate every minor milestone in the process! That way you make sure the highs outnumber the lows. (#7) 有人曾给我一条很好的建议，帮助我应对情绪低谷可能相对频繁出现的情况……庆祝过程中的每一个小里程碑！这样你就能确保快乐的时刻比低落的时刻多。（#7）
However, soon after the celebration, respondents encouraged people to shift to something else. This strategy not only continues one’s productivity but also counteracts a desire to fixate on the AMR review process. As noted by one respondent: 然而，庆祝活动结束后不久，受访者就鼓励人们转向其他事情。这种策略不仅能延续一个人的生产力，还能抵消人们对AMR审查过程过度关注的欲望。正如一位受访者所指出的：
Move on to the next submission. Don’t obsess (check for updates daily) or dwell on it (worry that you did something wrong; regret …. some aspect of the paper). (#55) 继续处理下一份提交。不要过度纠结（每天检查更新）或反复琢磨（担心自己哪里做错了；后悔论文的某些方面）。(#55)
The Revise and Resubmit
修订与重新提交
The survey data suggest that the psychological experience at the R&R stage (be it the first, second, or even third R&R) is fairly balanced between highs and lows, but with lows more salient than at initial submission. This finding struck us as both interesting and surprising. How many of us have proclaimed upon submission, “If only I could get an R&R!”? Yet our respondents identified many lows upon receiving such a decision because they faced a long and arduous path of revision. Meanwhile, we noted that the impetus for both highs and lows flipped from the work of theory writing to the publication process as authors moved into this next stage. 调查数据表明，在修改与重审（R&R）阶段（无论是第一次、第二次，甚至第三次R&R）的心理体验在高低起伏间较为平衡，但低谷比最初提交时更为突出。这一发现既有趣又令人惊讶。我们中有多少人在提交时曾宣称“要是能收到修改与重审意见就好了！”？然而，我们的受访者在收到此类决定时却指出了许多低谷，因为他们面临着漫长而艰巨的修改历程。同时，我们注意到，随着作者进入下一阶段，高低情绪的驱动力从理论写作工作转向了出版流程。
Highs. In contrast to the initial submission stage, the highs of the R&R stage were dominated not by positive feelings about the work itself but by reactions to the encouraging feedback from the review process. Most prominent were feelings of hope that, in this stage, took the form of animated optimism. Here, authors start to envision a future in which the article appears in print at AMR, as in this response: 高潮。与最初的提交阶段相比，R&R阶段的“高潮”并非源于对作品本身的积极感受，而是对评审过程中鼓励性反馈的反应。最突出的是希望感，在这个阶段，这种希望感表现为热烈的乐观情绪。在这里，作者开始设想文章在AMR发表的未来，正如以下回应中所体现的：
The initial reaction from this is hope and happiness. I’d be lying if I didn’t already “write this one on my CV” and yet that’s usually before reading the correspondence. (#48) 对此的初始反应是希望和幸福。如果我没有已经“把这个写进我的简历”，那我就是在撒谎，不过通常这是在阅读信件之前就做的。（#48）
Another prominent high emerging from positive feedback is a sense of external validation, which takes the form of “comfort” in others finding value in one’s work and feeling like maybe one knows what they are doing after all. In the words of one respondent: 另一个从积极反馈中涌现的显著高价值点是一种外部认可感，这种认可表现为“安慰”——他人发现自己工作的价值，并且让人觉得或许自己终究还是知道自己在做什么。正如一位受访者所说：
An R&R from AMR is a recognition that you have the potential to write and contribute at the very highest level of our field. It’s a major ego boost, no two ways around it. (#71) 来自AMR的R&R是一种认可，即你有潜力在我们领域的最高水平进行写作和贡献。这无疑是对自我的极大鼓舞。（#71）
In fact, receiving an R&R may feel especially validating with theoretical work. As one respondent noted, in contrast with empirical work where one draws upon others’ methods, “new elements of theory really come just from you and your team” (#27). 事实上，在理论研究中，收到回复（R&R）可能会让人感觉特别有成就感。正如一位受访者指出的，与实证研究中借鉴他人方法不同，“理论的新内容真的只来自你和你的团队”（#27）。
Two other highs stemming from the publication process were relief and gratitude. Relief at the R&R stage was both more pronounced in frequency and far more “thrilling” and “euphoric” in content than at the initial submission stage. Similarly, some noted greater relief upon receiving an R&R at AMR relative to other journals. In the words of one respondent, “Because the risks feel higher, a positive decision feels rarer and more rewarding” (#27). Gratitude upon receiving an R&R was also commonly reported. 出版过程中产生的另外两种情绪高涨来自于如释重负和感激。在修改与重审（R&R）阶段的如释重负，不仅在出现频率上更为显著，而且在内容上比初次投稿阶段更加“令人振奋”和“欣喜若狂”。同样，一些人指出，与其他期刊相比，在《管理科学学报》（AMR）收到修改与重审通知时，他们感到的如释重负更为强烈。正如一位受访者所说：“因为风险感觉更高，所以积极的决定显得更为罕见且更具回报感”（#27）。收到修改与重审通知时的感激之情也被普遍提及。
At this stage, respondents reported a high upon finding “a supportive reviewer who actually gets what you’re trying to do and clearly wants to help you get there” (#14). There was also appreciation for feedback that improves one’s work: 在这个阶段，受访者表示，当发现“有一位支持性的评审人真正理解你的意图，并且明确希望帮助你实现目标”时（#14），他们感到非常满意。此外，他们也对能够改进自己工作的反馈表示感激：
As I’ve worked through the revision process, I’ve always become increasingly appreciative of the AE and reviewers for helping me know where to direct my attention and to make my paper better. Every time I’ve resubmitted, I’ve always thought, “Even if it’s not accepted, I know it’s a much better paper now.” (#3) 在我完成修改的过程中，我越来越感激AE（编辑）和审稿人，他们帮助我明确了需要关注的地方，让我的论文得到了改进。每次重新提交时，我总会想：“即使没有被接受，我也知道现在的论文已经好多了。”（#3）
Though they were less dominant at the R&R stage than upon initial submission, respondents did report some highs emanating from the work itself. As in the prior stage, respondents reported feeling excitement in ideas. However, at the R&R stage, this high was less about the exuberance of discovering new ideas and more focused on “perfect[ing] ideas” based on reviewer and AE feedback. A similar number of respondents reported feeling a high of satisfaction in the intellectual work. As before, this revolved around the joys of solving puzzles and challenges, though now these were introduced by the review team’s feedback instead of the authors’ own initial ideas and discoveries. Although some experienced this as a weaker form of satisfaction, others said it was equally satisfying, as in the following: 尽管在R&R阶段，受访者的主导性不如提交初期，但他们确实报告了一些源于工作本身的积极情绪。与前一阶段一样，受访者报告了对创意的兴奋感。然而，在R&R阶段，这种积极情绪较少源于发现新创意的热情，而更多地集中在“完善创意”上——这是基于评审人和AE（副编辑）的反馈。有相当数量的受访者报告称，在智力工作中获得了满足感。和之前一样，这种满足感源于解决谜题和挑战的乐趣，但现在这些谜题和挑战是由评审团队的反馈提出的，而非作者最初的创意和发现。尽管有些人认为这种满足感较为微弱，但另一些人表示它同样令人满足，如下所述：
Working on the revision and addressing the reviewers’ comments is interesting and challenging and I get the same sense of accomplishment and challenge that I had with the initial submission. It feels good to be able to understand something better—and the revision process helps with that. (#8) 修改稿件并回应审稿人的意见既有趣又具挑战性，我从中获得了与最初投稿时相同的成就感和挑战感。能够更好地理解某些内容感觉很棒——而修改过程有助于实现这一点。（#8）
As a final theme derived from the work itself, a handful of individuals reported a high focused on the pride in accomplishment. Sometimes this stemmed from merely receiving an invitation to revise and resubmit while other times it arose from feeling proud of one’s revision. 作为作品本身衍生出的最后一个主题，少数人报告称高度关注于成就感带来的自豪感。有时这种自豪感仅仅源于收到修改和重投的邀请，而有时则源于对自己修改成果感到自豪。
Lows. In contrast to the initial submission where we noted two targets of frustration (i.e., the writing itself or the publishing process), at the R&R stage all frustrations seem to be oriented toward the process. However, these frustrations came in two distinct varieties. The first we label as a mild frustration, which includes a feeling that one is not perfectly “heard” or “understood” by the review team, combined with a feeling that authors lack power or are “completely at the mercy” of others. As noted by one respondent: 低。与我们最初提交时指出的两个挫折目标（即写作本身或出版过程）相比，在修改与重审（R&R）阶段，所有挫折似乎都集中在过程上。然而，这些挫折有两种截然不同的类型。第一种我们称之为轻微挫折，包括一种感觉，即作者觉得自己没有被评审团队完全“倾听”或“理解”，同时还觉得作者缺乏权力或“完全受他人摆布”。正如一位受访者所指出的：
I generally feel quite a bit of frustration when reading through the reviews and seeing where the reviewers have misunderstood and/or mischaracterized my arguments. (#23) 当我阅读评论，看到评论者误解和/或歪曲我的论点时，我通常会感到相当大的挫败感。(#23)
We also noted strong frustration in the responses, in which respondents identified more intense feelings of “annoyance,” “resentment,” or even “insult.” One respondent expressed this frustration as anger, saying the low revolved around: 我们还注意到受访者的回应中存在强烈的挫败感，他们在回应中表达了更强烈的“恼怒”“怨恨”甚至“侮辱”的情绪。有一位受访者将这种挫败感表达为愤怒，称问题围绕的核心是：
The frustration/disappointment of seeing ideas/arguments you developed (and spent a lot of time on!) being shot down. The frustration of not having seen some of the things the reviewers saw before submitting it the first time. The uncertainty of how to respond to some of the concerns/issues. At times, the anger at reviewers for not understanding or seeming to be able to be open to new ideas and perspectives— a sense of unfairness at times. (#68) 看到自己提出的想法/论点（并且为此投入了大量时间！）被否决时的沮丧/失望。第一次提交前，未能预见评审人看到的某些问题而产生的挫败感。面对一些质疑/问题时，不知如何回应的不确定性。有时会因评审人不理解或似乎无法接受新想法和观点而感到愤怒——有时还会有一种不公平的感觉。（#68）
In addition to feelings of frustration, respondents also reported a sense of trepidation that continued from the initial submission. Again, this took the form of worry about how the revised manuscript would be received. A few respondents also continued to report feeling self-doubt, but it was less pronounced at this stage and primarily motivated by the unknown of how the editorial team would respond to the revisions. 除了挫败感之外，受访者还表示，从最初提交稿件开始就一直存在一种不安感。同样，这种不安表现为担心修改后的稿件会受到怎样的对待。少数受访者仍报告称存在自我怀疑，但在这一阶段这种情绪不那么明显，主要是因为不确定编辑团队会如何回应修改意见。
Though the lows (like the highs) at the R&R stage were more powerfully shaped by the publication process, we also captured two themes that derived from the work of theory writing itself. The most pronounced of these themes—and one reported among almost half of respondents—centered on the feeling of being overwhelmed by the work. Respondents reported feeling like there was “too much to do,” and that they did not know how to respond to the reviewers’ comments. Words used to describe this feeling include “daunting,” “puzzling,” and “confusion.” This feeling was also the most intimately tied to the specific experience at AMR and to theory writing. For example: 尽管R&R阶段的低分（如同高分）更多地受到发表流程的强烈影响，但我们也捕捉到了两个源自理论写作本身工作的主题。其中最突出的一个主题——在近一半的受访者中都有提及——围绕着被工作压垮的感受。受访者表示感觉“要做的事情太多”，并且不知道如何回应审稿人的意见。用来描述这种感受的词语包括“令人生畏”、“令人困惑”和“混乱”。这种感受还与在AMR的特定经历以及理论写作最为紧密地联系在一起。例如：
Revising for AMR can feel extremely overwhelming. Even with excellent guidance from the AE and reviewers, there’s never a clear right answer regarding what to do to make your paper publishable. It takes time, patience, and an open mind to find the best path forward—and even then you never know how the gatekeepers will react to what you’ve done. So, there’s a lot of fear and anxiety that comes with the revision process. Sometimes you wonder, why am I putting myself through this? (#3) 修改AMR（学术会议论文）可能会让人感到极度压力。即便有AE（领域编辑）和审稿人的出色指导，关于如何让论文具备发表条件，也从来没有一个明确的正确答案。找到最佳前进路径需要时间、耐心和开放的心态——即便如此，你也永远不知道审稿人会对你的修改作何反应。因此，修改过程中会产生大量的恐惧和焦虑。有时你会疑惑，我为什么要让自己经历这一切？（#3）
Finally, a few ERB members reported an acute but surprising low of hopelessness. One respondent noted that they felt “dread” at the thought of having to make extensive revisions, while also feeling extreme “fear of rejection” (#35). Another noted that “the pressure of not messing up the R&R is immense” (#71). 最后，几名ERB成员报告了一种强烈但令人惊讶的绝望情绪。一位受访者表示，想到必须进行大量修改，他们感到“恐惧”，同时还感到极度的“被拒绝的恐惧”（#35）。另一位受访者指出，“不搞砸回复与回复（R&R）的压力是巨大的”（#71）。
TABLE 2 R&R Highs and Lows
表2 R&R 最高值与最低值
TABLE 2 (Continued)
表2（续）
Vote: Each quote is followed by the participant number from our survey. 投票：每条引语后均附有我们调查中的参与者编号。
How to cope with the revise and resubmit: Feel excited, then jump into action. As noted above, receiving an R&R can be both pleasant and unpleasant. Whereas authors feel excitement over the opportunity, they also feel the work ahead of them is daunting. Our respondents offered many strategies to cope with these competing emotions. 如何应对修改后重投：感到兴奋，然后立即行动。如前所述，收到修改后重投（R&R）既可能令人愉快，也可能令人不快。作者们对这个机会感到兴奋，但也觉得面前的工作艰巨。我们的受访者提供了许多应对这些复杂情绪的策略。
First, several respondents suggested that authors take time to celebrate and wait to read the reviews, at least for a few days. Such advice was intended to avoid the “overwhelming” aspects of adequately digesting the reviews. Instead, consistent with the earlier advice to “celebrate every milestone” (#7), authors were encouraged to acknowledge their hard work and “celebrate the opportunity” (#8) that lies ahead. For example: 首先，几位受访者建议作者花些时间庆祝并等待阅读评论，至少要等几天。这样的建议是为了避免在充分消化评论时出现“不堪重负”的情况。相反，与之前“庆祝每一个里程碑”（#7）的建议一致，作者们被鼓励认可自己的辛勤工作，并“庆祝前方的机会”（#8）。例如：
First, celebrate your R&R! It is noteworthy and a signal that your work is moving in the right direction. (#55) 首先，庆祝你的休息与恢复！这很值得注意，也是你工作方向正确的信号。（#55）
Yet, given the amount of work ahead, advice to celebrate was almost always followed by a suggestion to move quickly into action. The first such strategy was that authors should thoroughly read and process the reviews. This advice included not only “read the reviews carefully” (#45), especially doing so “multiple times” (#63), but also the suggestion to manage one’s emotions in response to the criticisms. In the words of one respondent: 然而，考虑到未来的工作量，庆祝的建议几乎总是紧接着一个迅速采取行动的建议。第一个这样的策略是，作者应该彻底阅读和处理评论。这一建议不仅包括“仔细阅读评论”（#45），尤其是“多次”阅读（#63），还包括建议在面对批评时管理自己的情绪。正如一位受访者所说：
While it is difficult for me to follow my advice here, it is important to reframe the adversarial nature of the reviews as opportunities to sharpen and clarify my thinking and argumentation, and not as a personal attack against my abilities as a scholar. (#23) 虽然我很难遵循自己这里的建议，但重要的是要将评论的对立性质重新解读为磨练和澄清我的思维与论证的机会，而不是针对我作为学者能力的人身攻击。（#23）
If one can “start from the assumption that everything [the reviewers] say is right” (#37), authors may discover that even comments that trigger lows, such as feeling misunderstood or insulted, could be the key to a successful revision. For example: 如果有人能“从‘评审者说的一切都是对的’这一假设出发”（#37），作者可能会发现，即使是那些引发负面情绪的评论，比如感到被误解或受辱，也可能是成功修改的关键。例如：
Almost every set of reviews I initially disagreed with or felt resistant to eventually produced a greatly improved revision. (#27) 几乎每一组我最初不认同或持抵触态度的评论，最终都促成了大幅改进的修订。(#27)
That said, respondents noted that the work of maintaining such emotional perspective can be challenging. In fact, when working on a revision, authors should “Assume that you will experience a range of emotions from excitement to despair” (#31). Thus, they repeated the suggestion to get help. In this stage, respondents again stressed the value of friendly but critical reviews, working with coauthors, and getting advice from colleagues. Specific to this stage, they also made suggestions to potentially “communicate with the editor” (#71), whether to “clarify … what they are seeking” (#60) or get feedback on key decisions. As one respondent wrote, “AMR editors are excellent and want papers to succeed” (#33). 话虽如此，受访者指出，保持这种情感视角的工作可能颇具挑战性。事实上，在进行修订时，作者应该“假设自己会经历从兴奋到绝望的各种情绪”（#31）。因此，他们再次建议寻求帮助。在这一阶段，受访者再次强调了友好但批判性评论、与合著者合作以及向同事寻求建议的价值。针对这一阶段，他们还提出了一些潜在的建议，比如“与编辑沟通”（#71），明确“他们在寻求什么”（#60），或者就关键决策获取反馈。正如一位受访者所写：“AMR编辑非常出色，希望论文能够成功”（#33）。
Another important coping strategy to deal with the forthcoming emotional journey was to make a plan. Although respondents encouraged authors to wait a few days before reading the reviews, many noted the importance of creating “a clear plan and timeline” (#67) relatively soon after receiving the decision. Such a plan helps to both “organize yourself and your emotions as well—making it seem doable” (#21). A revision at AMR was noted as especially time-consuming but worth the effort if managed well. 应对即将到来的情感历程的另一个重要应对策略是制定计划。尽管受访者鼓励作者在阅读评论前等待几天，但许多人强调在收到决定后相对较快地制定“清晰的计划和时间表”（#67）的重要性。这样的计划有助于“组织自己和自己的情绪——让它看起来是可行的”（#21）。AMR的修订工作被认为特别耗时，但如果管理得当，值得付出努力。
Lastly, although respondents encouraged authors to carefully consider all reviewer comments, they also counseled them to remember your vision for the paper. Not all reviewer suggestions may be essential so authors should avoid putting “lipstick on your pig” (#70) (i.e., making changes that do not improve the paper). Such advice to keep one’s “voice” and goals in mind addressed earlier-noted frustrations about reviewer comments that seem less helpful. 最后，尽管受访者鼓励作者仔细考虑所有审稿人意见，但也建议他们记住自己对论文的愿景。并非所有审稿人建议都是必要的，因此作者应避免进行“给猪涂口红”（#70）式的修改（即做出不会改进论文的改动）。这种保持自身“声音”和目标的建议，回应了之前提到的对审稿意见似乎不太有用的沮丧情绪。
The Rejection
拒绝
As one might expect, the psychological experiences from receiving a rejection (whether after initial submission or R&R) were skewed toward the lows, so we report those first. Further, we found that lows and highs each stemmed from different sources. Whereas the lows mostly stemmed from feelings about the work itself, the (relatively few) highs stemmed principally from reactions to the publication process. We surmise from this pattern that rejection often leaves authors feeling much pain and little pleasure from writing theory—arguably a bad combination from the perspective of motivation. 正如人们所料，收到拒稿（无论是初次投稿后还是在修改返修阶段）时的心理体验偏向负面，因此我们先报告这些情况。此外，我们发现负面情绪和正面情绪各自来源于不同的因素。负面情绪主要源于对自身工作的感受，而（相对较少的）正面情绪主要源于对发表流程的反应。从这一模式我们推测，拒稿往往会让作者在写作理论时感到痛苦，却几乎没有愉悦感——从动机的角度来看，这可以说是一种糟糕的组合。
Lows. There were plenty of lows associated with rejection, some of which continued from the prior stages. Though many of the lows were directed at the work of theory writing, respondents weren’t lacking negative things to say about the publication process, either! 低谷。与被拒相关的低谷有很多，其中一些延续自之前的阶段。尽管许多低谷都指向理论写作的工作，但受访者对出版过程也不乏负面评价！
Most prominent of the work-related lows was a profound sense of disappointment. This feeling manifested as a sadness that the manuscript’s ideas wouldn’t be heard or feeling that all the work was “for nothing.” One respondent expressed that it was “Like a dagger had been thrust into my heart. Well, maybe not quite that bad, but you get the message” (#12). Other words to describe this feeling included “sad,” “despair,” “devastation,” “crushed,” a “loss, and “shattering.” This feeling was also directed at the author’s career prospects, noting that tenure and promotion would now be more difficult. As one respondent noted: 工作相关低谷中最突出的是一种深深的失望感。这种情绪表现为一种悲伤，觉得手稿中的想法不会被倾听，或者觉得所有的工作都“白费了”。一位受访者表示，这种感觉“就像一把匕首刺入我的心脏。嗯，也许没那么糟，但你能明白我的意思”（#12）。其他用来描述这种感觉的词包括“悲伤”、“绝望”、“毁灭”、“崩溃”、“失落”和“破碎”。这种情绪也指向作者的职业前景，指出终身教职和晋升现在会更加困难。正如一位受访者指出的：
The “lows” are very low as you feel like all the work you’ve put into the manuscript and into the conversation with the review team was in vain. The pressure of the tenure clock adds to the depth of the “lows” associated with a rejection. (#34) “低谷”时期的情绪非常低落，你会觉得自己投入到手稿和与评审团队沟通的所有努力都白费了。任期截止日期的压力会加剧被拒后“低谷”的程度。（#34）
Respondents also expressed a related feeling of discouragement upon rejection, reflected in comments about feeling “deflated,” “demoralized,” and “demotivated.” These responses occasionally included feeling “fatigue” (which was central in the initial submission), and feeling uncertain about “what to do next” with the paper. This theme was again tied to the uniqueness of writing theory for AMR. As one author put it, “[I’m] wondering where I’m going to send the paper next. If it doesn’t pass muster at AMR, it’s a long way down (in outlet quality) to the next choice for a theory paper” (#69). 受访者在被拒后也表达了类似的沮丧情绪，评论中提到“泄气”“士气低落”和“失去动力”。这些回应中偶尔还包括感到“疲惫”（这一点在最初的提交中是核心内容），以及对论文“下一步该做什么”感到不确定。这一主题再次与AMR写作理论的独特性相关联。正如一位作者所说：“[我]在想接下来该把论文投到哪里。如果它在AMR不被认可，那么下一个理论论文的选择在期刊质量上就会差很多（#69）。”
Tied to these emotions was a feeling of self-doubt that returned from the initial submission, although less severe in the R&R stage. Whereas self-doubt was often expressed as a questioning of one’s abilities at the initial submission, after a rejection it had a more concrete feel, transitioning from a questioning to a realization. One respondent recalled such harsh self-talk as, “I suck. I will never (again) make a worthwhile contribution to anything in our field” (#31). Another noted, “You feel as though you ‘blew it.’ You had this golden opportunity in front of you, and you couldn’t deliver the goods. It’s deflating” (#51). Others expressed “shame,” “belittlement,” and “self-blame” as related feelings. Reflecting self-doubt as well as disappointment and discouragement, one respondent expressed: 与这些情绪相关的是一种自我怀疑，这种怀疑在最初提交时就存在，尽管在修改与回复（R&R）阶段程度较轻。在最初提交时，自我怀疑通常表现为对自身能力的质疑，但在被拒后，这种怀疑有了更具体的感受，从质疑转变为一种认知。一位受访者回忆起这种严厉的自我对话：“我很糟糕。我再也不会（再次）为我们领域的任何事情做出有价值的贡献了”（#31）。另一位受访者指出：“你会觉得自己‘搞砸了’。你面前曾有一个绝佳的机会，但你没能抓住。这真的很令人沮丧”（#51）。还有人表达了“羞耻”、“贬低”和“自责”等相关感受。一位受访者表达了自我怀疑、失望和气馁的情绪：
I feel bad that I sent a paper that got rejected. Since I sent it, I obviously thought that it was good enough, but the feedback says it is not. So I feel like I am not up to par in my thinking with the experts in the field. And that hurts. I also hate the finality of a rejection. That there is no going back to AMR with that paper is not a good feeling. (#45) 我很沮丧，因为我提交的论文被拒了。既然我提交了，显然我认为它已经足够好了，但反馈却说并非如此。所以我觉得自己的思维水平比不上该领域的专家，这让我很难过。我也讨厌被拒的那种最终定论感，那篇论文无法再提交给AMR的感觉很糟糕。（#45）
Finally, there were a number of reported lows related to the publication process itself, with continued feelings of mild and strong frustration from the R&R stage. In terms of mild frustration, this was again expressed as a sense of powerlessness with the process, as a missed opportunity, or as a frustration that reviewers or the editor did not “see” the value of the paper. Sometimes this frustration was also expressed as confusion regarding one’s own opinion of the paper relative to the reviewer comments, as when one author said: 最后，有一些报告的低谷与出版流程本身有关，R&R（修改与重审）阶段持续存在轻微和强烈的挫败感。关于轻微的挫败感，这再次被表达为对流程的无力感、错失的机会，或者审稿人或编辑没有“看到”论文价值的挫败感。有时，这种挫败感也表现为对自己对论文的看法与审稿人意见之间关系的困惑，正如一位作者所说：
Like many people, I feel a sense of frustration when receiving a rejection at AMR because it is often not entirely clear why a paper is being rejected. Most of the “fatal flaws” seem “fixable” and, depending upon the stage in which the manuscript is rejected, the criticisms of the paper can feel quite petty and misguided. (#23) 和许多人一样，当我在AMR收到拒稿通知时，我会感到沮丧，因为通常不清楚论文被拒的具体原因。大多数所谓的“致命缺陷”似乎“可以修正”，而且根据稿件被拒时的阶段，对论文的批评可能显得相当琐碎和有失偏颇。（#23）
Similar to the R&R stage, some respondents expressed their frustration even more intensely, often including feelings of “anger,” “indignation,” and even a sense of “betrayal.” One author even commented with a degree of dramatic flair, “how dare they not ‘get’ my idea!” (#55). Another similarly explained that they felt “anger that the reviewers did not seem to understand my (wonderful!) work” (#35). Another explained it as “the sort of feeling one gets after having been deceived” (#48). Respondents expressed in these instances that they felt like they had done everything they could to meet an “unrealistically high bar,” yet they still received a rejection. 与R&R阶段类似，一些受访者的沮丧情绪更为强烈，常常包含“愤怒”“愤慨”甚至“被背叛”的感觉。有一位作者甚至带着几分戏剧化的语气评论道：“他们怎么敢不‘理解’我的想法！”（#55）。另一位受访者也有类似的表述，称自己感到“愤怒，因为评审似乎没有理解我（精彩的！）作品”（#35）。还有人将这种感受描述为“类似被欺骗后的那种感觉”（#48）。在这些情况下，受访者表示他们觉得自己已经尽了最大努力来达到一个“不切实际的高标准”，但仍然遭到了拒绝。
Highs. Not surprisingly, there were far fewer psychological highs reported at the rejection stage with several respondents expressing surprise at the question. Yet, some highs did emerge, primarily in response to feedback received in the review process rather than the work of theory writing. By far, the two most common highs (comprising more than half of high-related responses) were gratitude and external validation. Interestingly, despite the negative outcome, some respondents expressed feelings of gratitude for the reviewers’ and editor’s helpful feedback and general engagement with their ideas, as in the following: 高潮。毫不奇怪，在拒绝阶段报告的心理高潮要少得多，一些受访者对这个问题表示惊讶。然而，确实也出现了一些高潮，主要是对评审过程中收到的反馈的回应，而不是理论写作本身的成果。到目前为止，最常见的两种高潮（占与高潮相关的回应的一半以上）是感激和外部认可。有趣的是，尽管结果是负面的，一些受访者还是表达了对评审人和编辑提供的有益反馈以及对他们想法的积极参与的感激之情，如下所示：
The letter from the action editor was constructive, so (not in the moment, but later) there was some gratitude for ideas on how to improve the paper for the next submission. (#68) 来自行动编辑的信件很有建设性，因此（不是当时，而是后来）对于如何改进论文以便下次提交的建议，表达了一些感激之情。（#68）
We also find it noteworthy and inspiring that many respondents encountered external validation in the face of rejection. In most cases, they felt validated by comments from the review team that seemed “supportive of [their] goals” (#32) or to indicate that “you’re on the right track” (#39). In a couple of instances, respondents felt that their own concerns about the paper had been validated, which also afforded some degree of “comfort.” 我们还发现一个值得注意且令人鼓舞的现象：许多受访者在遭遇拒绝时，却获得了来自外部的认可。在大多数情况下，他们觉得评审团队的评论“支持[他们的]目标”（#32）或表明“你走在正确的道路上”（#39），从而感到自己的工作得到了认可。在少数情况下，受访者认为自己对论文的担忧得到了认可，这也带来了一定程度的“安慰”。
Though less common, respondents also reported several other positive psychological states emanating from review process feedback. There was relief in the closure provided, especially in not having to continue with the selected reviewers, such as: 虽然这种情况较少见，但受访者也报告了来自评审过程反馈的其他几种积极心理状态。评审过程提供的了结感带来了如释重负的感觉，尤其是不必继续与选定的评审人打交道时，例如：
On occasion, I think there is some relief when I receive a rejection at AMR mostly due to the sense that I can resubmit my paper somewhere else and receive a new set of reviews with which to work. Sometimes, the conflicting visions that authors and reviewers have for a paper are simply incompatible, and so it is important to be able to move forward with paper with different reviewers in order to realize the vision one has of the primary contributions of the paper. (#23) 有时，当我在AMR收到拒稿时，我会感到些许释然，主要是因为我觉得可以将论文重新投稿到其他地方，并获得新的一批评审意见来进行修改。有时，作者和评审人对一篇论文的看法存在冲突，这些冲突的观点往往是无法兼容的，因此，能够带着不同的评审人继续推进论文，以实现自己对论文主要贡献的设想，这一点非常重要。（#23）
In addition, understanding was a high that only emerged at the rejection stage, and it entailed coming to accept the decision and learn from it. For example: 此外，领悟是一种只有在拒绝阶段才会产生的高度，它需要接受这个决定并从中吸取教训。例如：
While it always stings, after some time, I think you can look back more critically to assess what you could have done better in the paper. (#73) 虽然这总是会让人难受，但过一段时间后，我觉得你可以更批判性地回顾过去，评估一下在论文中你本可以做得更好的地方。（#73）
A few respondents even reported hope. Usually this was generated by “excellent and constructive feedback” provided by the team that helped authors envision new ways to move forward at a different journal. One individual also reported hope when being rejected from AMR relative to other journals in that, “AMR is the highest you can go, so you can always send it to a lower tier journal next” (#45). 一些受访者甚至表达了希望。通常这是由“优秀且有建设性的反馈”产生的，该反馈来自帮助作者在另一家期刊上设想新前进方向的团队。有个人在被AMR拒稿时相对于其他期刊也表示了希望，称“AMR是你能达到的最高水平，所以你可以下次总是把它投到较低层级的期刊”（#45）。
Only a tiny fraction of reported highs at this stage emerged from the work of theory writing itself. A couple of respondents noted a sustained feeling of excitement in ideas. Here the high took the form of believing one’s ideas were still moving forward despite the apparent setback—for example, finding “smart engagement” among the review team “very energizing.” One respondent even expressed a sense of pride in accomplishment from at least trying to publish theory at the highest level. 在这一阶段，只有极小一部分被报道的“高点”来自理论写作本身的工作。有几位受访者提到，他们持续感受到思想带来的兴奋感。在这里，“高点”表现为尽管遭遇明显挫折，仍坚信自己的想法仍在推进——例如，在评审团队中发现“巧妙的互动”“非常令人振奋”。有一位受访者甚至表示，至少尝试在最高级别发表理论，让他产生了成就感和自豪感。
How to cope with the rejection: Feel the pain, but again—take action. The many emotional lows associated with a rejection led respondents to offer excellent strategies for coping. Although some were similar to the prior stages, we noted several key differences. Given the predominantly negative experience of a rejection, the number and type of coping strategies narrowed considerably with striking consistency in advice for moving forward. Additionally, like the R&R stage, authors were again encouraged to wait to read the reviews. However, after a rejection, this time frame extended from a few days to potentially a few weeks “when the emotions are not so raw” (#5). With a rejection, waiting to read the reviews was intended to encourage authors to feel their feelings whether they need to “take a few days or weeks to vent” (#70) or “allow a little wallowing” (#68), both of which were typical reactions. 如何应对拒稿：感受痛苦，但再次——采取行动。与拒稿相关的诸多情绪低谷让受访者提出了出色的应对策略。尽管其中一些策略与之前的阶段相似，但我们注意到几个关键差异。考虑到拒稿主要是负面经历，应对策略的数量和类型大幅减少，且关于如何继续前进的建议惊人地一致。此外，与休息恢复（R&R）阶段类似，作者再次被鼓励等待阅读评审意见。然而，在拒稿后，这个时间框架从几天延长到可能几周，“当情绪不再那么激动时”（#5）。在拒稿的情况下，等待阅读评审意见是为了让作者能够感受自己的情绪，无论是需要“花几天或几周发泄”（#70）还是“允许一点沉溺”（#68），这两种都是典型的反应。
TABLE 3 Rejection Highs and Lows
表3 拒绝的高点与低点
TABLE 3 (Continued)
表3（续）
Note: Each quote is followed by the participant number from our survey. 注：每条引语后均附有我们调查中的参与者编号。
Respondents also encouraged authors to ensure they don’t take it personally, with reminders that authors should strive to “separate paper, person, and process” (#22). This point was consistent with encouragement to maintain perspective on the process, because developing such a mindset helps authors to realize that: 受访者还鼓励作者不要将其视为个人攻击，并提醒作者应努力“区分论文、个人和过程”（#22）。这一点与鼓励作者保持对过程的正确看法是一致的，因为培养这种心态有助于作者认识到：
Any one acceptance or rejection is not a reflection on who you are but a reflection on what those particular reviewers thought about your work in this instance. (#39) 任何一次接受或拒绝都不反映你的个人特质，而是反映了那些特定评审者在这次评审中对你作品的看法。(#39)
All these strategies were necessary to address the most common coping strategy for rejection: learn from the reviews and plan your next move. Respondents clearly noted the importance of feeling one’s emotions after the disappointment of rejection. However, the vast majority encouraged authors to develop a learning orientation, taking actions to improve their work for the next outlet. They suggested searching the reviews for “kernels of wisdom” (#33) and “common themes” (#34). Even if such criticisms of one’s work are challenging to hear, respondents felt these weaknesses would be identified at the next journal. As such, they urged authors to learn as much as possible when deciding how to move forward. In the words of one respondent: 所有这些策略都是为了应对拒绝时最常见的应对策略：从评论中学习并规划下一步行动。受访者明确指出，在经历拒绝的失望后，感受自己的情绪非常重要。然而，绝大多数受访者鼓励作者培养学习导向，采取行动改进自己的作品以应对下一个投稿机会。他们建议在评论中寻找“智慧内核”（#33）和“共同主题”（#34）。即使对自己作品的这类批评难以入耳，受访者也认为这些弱点会在下一个期刊中被发现。因此，他们敦促作者在决定下一步行动时尽可能多地学习。正如一位受访者所说：
The thing about theory is you can always change it, so if the authors really believe in their paper I would recommend they treat the rejection as an R&R. Are there ways they can change the paper to address the feedback from the reviewers? (#32) 关于理论的一点是，你总能对其进行修改，所以如果作者真的相信自己的论文，我会建议他们将拒稿视为重新提交（R&R）。他们有没有办法修改论文以回应用审者的反馈？（#32）
Above all, the board members encouraged authors not to give up and to continue working on the paper. As one respondent succinctly wrote, “Just keep swimming!” (#19). 最重要的是，董事会成员鼓励作者不要放弃，继续撰写论文。正如一位受访者简洁地写道：“继续前进！”（#19）。
The Acceptance
验收
Understandably, just as the lows outweighed the highs at the rejection stage, the highs outweighed the lows at the acceptance stage. However, whereas rejection highs were about the review process, the highs upon acceptance shifted dramatically back to the experience of writing theory itself. 可以理解的是，就像在拒绝阶段中负面情绪（低谷）多于正面情绪（高峰）一样，在接受阶段中正面情绪（高峰）多于负面情绪（低谷）。然而，拒绝阶段的“高峰”与评审过程相关，而接受阶段的“高峰”则发生了巨大转变，重新回归到理论写作本身的体验。
Highs. The positive psychological experience of receiving acceptance seems to come full circle to the initial submission in that highs stem from the work of theory writing. However, the nature of these highs was distinct in the acceptance stage not only in which themes came to the foreground, but in the forms they took. Whereas satisfaction in the intellectual work of solving puzzles was primary at submission, it was no longer reported upon acceptance. Replacing it as the dominant experience was pride in accomplishment. In addition, although this theme emerged at every stage, it was transformed after acceptance into a more potent affective experience described by most respondents as “elation” or “joy.” Respondents described the feeling as a “pinnacle experience” in their career akin to “reaching a summit” or “winning an Olympic medal … just without the glory” (#26) There were also indications that the high of an AMR acceptance was higher than that of many other kinds of acceptances, such as this insight: 高潮。获得认可带来的积极心理体验似乎与最初的投稿形成了一个完整的循环，因为高潮源于理论写作的成果。然而，这些高潮的本质在认可阶段有所不同，不仅是哪些主题成为焦点，还包括它们呈现的形式。在投稿时，解决难题的智力工作带来的满足感是主要的，但在获得认可时，这种满足感不再被提及。取而代之成为主要体验的是成就感带来的自豪感。此外，尽管这一主题在每个阶段都出现，但在获得认可后，它转变为一种更强烈的情感体验，大多数受访者将其描述为“狂喜”或“喜悦”。受访者将这种感觉描述为职业生涯中的“巅峰体验”，类似于“达到顶峰”或“赢得奥运奖牌……只是没有那种荣耀”（#26）。还有迹象表明，AMR（假设为某期刊或机构缩写）认可带来的高潮比许多其他类型的认可更高，例如以下观点：
An acceptance at AMR is rare, and there’s usually more of a personal investment in the ideas, so an acceptance feels particularly triumphant. (#27) 在AMR获得录用是很罕见的，而且大家通常会对这些想法投入更多个人情感，所以收到录用通知会让人感觉格外振奋。(#27)
One quarter of respondents also reported excitement in ideas. This theme took a new form upon acceptance. What had been excitement about idea discovery at the initial submission evolved into excitement about ideas now being “seen,” “vetted,” having an “impact on how people think about your chosen topic,” (#75) and “contribut[ing] to the development of organization science” (#34). Contributing ideas seemed to bring an intense high that epitomized for some “why I’m in this field” (#34). Consistent with the earlier-noted highs, some responses suggested that this feeling was elevated upon receiving an acceptance from AMR specifically. As one respondent explained, the intellectual openness of AMR review teams results in greater excitement at publication: 四分之一的受访者还提到了对创意的兴奋感。这一主题在获得认可后呈现出新的形式。最初提交时对创意发现的兴奋，转变为对创意如今被“看到”、“审核”、“对人们如何思考你所选的主题产生影响”（#75）以及“为组织科学的发展做出贡献”（#34）的兴奋。提出创意似乎带来了一种强烈的愉悦感，这对一些人来说正是“我为何投身这一领域”（#34）的体现。与之前提到的愉悦感一致，一些回应表明，特别是当收到《管理科学季刊》（AMR）的录用通知时，这种感觉会更加强烈。正如一位受访者解释的那样，《管理科学季刊》审稿团队的思想开放性使得发表成果时的兴奋感更强：
Exhilaration … What I like about AMR is that editors and reviewers allow you to think “big” and out of the box. This really gave me a feeling of working on something bigger than myself. Many lower ranked journals try to force you in a “box.” I feel like AMR is open to free spirits and fresh ideas, given that they are carefully worked through. (#42) 兴奋……我喜欢AMR的一点是，编辑和审稿人会让你敢于“大胆”思考，跳出常规。这真的让我有一种在做比自己更宏大的事情的感觉。许多级别较低的期刊试图把你框在一个“盒子”里。我觉得AMR对自由思想和新颖想法是开放的，只要这些想法经过仔细推敲。（#42）
In addition, the acceptance stage shares with other stages some of the same highs (though less prominently) stemming to the publication process— relief, external validation, and gratitude. Most prominent was a sense of relief, which became more dominant as the number of review rounds increased. Close behind followed feelings of external validation. Ultimately reaching the bar of acceptance led many to experience “recognition” of their capabilities. Usually, they felt validated by the field as a whole, but sometimes felt an increased individual value within the team, as in this example: 此外，验收阶段与其他阶段一样，也会经历一些相同的积极情绪（尽管表现得不那么突出），这些情绪源于出版过程——如如释重负、获得外部认可以及感激之情。最突出的是如释重负的感觉，随着评审轮次的增加，这种感觉变得更为强烈。紧随其后的是获得外部认可的感受。最终达到验收标准，让许多人体验到对自身能力的“认可”。通常，他们会感到整个领域对自己的认可，但有时也会在团队中感受到个人价值的提升，正如这个例子所示：
It showed that my authorship team of doctoral students and a senior person met a very high bar in our field. It showed that I could make a strong contribution to the team. (#46) 这表明我带领的博士生作者团队和一位资深人士在我们的领域达到了很高的标准。这表明我能够为团队做出重要贡献。（#46）
Finally, a handful of responses also reflect gratitude upon acceptance, especially for the AMR review team. Respondents reported that the team played “a big role” that helped to “deeply transform” their papers. 最后，还有一些回应在接受反馈时表达了感激之情，尤其针对AMR评审团队。受访者表示，该团队发挥了“重要作用”，帮助他们的论文“发生了深刻转变”。
Lows. Not surprisingly, respondents did not recognize many lows associated with an acceptance. One respondent even said, “You must be joking. How can you feel low with an acceptance at AMR?” (#69). However, in those that did respond, interesting themes emerged about the unexpected downsides of a manuscript’s success. 低谷。不足为奇的是，受访者并未意识到与“接受”相关的许多低谷。有一位受访者甚至表示：“你一定是在开玩笑。在获得AMR的录用时，怎么会感到低落呢？”（#69）。然而，在那些做出回应的受访者中，关于稿件成功带来的意外弊端的有趣主题浮现出来。
Related to the work itself, we noticed that several respondents recognized a sense of emptiness with the accomplishment. This was a feeling that they should be more excited than they were, or even a longing that the excitement should last longer. As one respondent put it, “an acceptance is usually followed by a small dip. The stress is long and high and suddenly it’s over” (#4). Another highlighted the fleeting feeling, saying, “The high doesn’t last forever—then it’s just another paper. I felt weird when I didn’t get a ‘high’ from my last acceptance. The spark had disappeared perhaps?” (#58). Still another expressed it as a sort of loss of self: 与工作本身相关的是，我们注意到一些受访者在完成工作时感到一种空虚感。这种感觉是他们本应比实际更兴奋，甚至是一种希望兴奋感能持续更久的渴望。正如一位受访者所说：“通常在完成一项工作后会有一个小小的低谷。压力大且持续时间长，然后突然就结束了”（#4）。另一位受访者强调了这种转瞬即逝的感觉，称：“这种兴奋感不会永远持续——然后它就只是另一篇论文了。当我从上次的成果中没有获得‘兴奋感’时，我感觉很奇怪。也许那种火花已经消失了？”（#58）。还有一位受访者将其表达为一种自我的某种失落：
I could not recall negative emotions at that time, but there are two that somehow kicked in at some point. The first one is some form of emptiness—my theory papers have more “of me” in them than most of my other work … So, when those projects were complete, there was a big question of “What’s next?” (#22) 我不记得当时有什么负面情绪，但不知为何，后来出现了两种情绪。第一种是某种空虚感——我的理论论文中“属于我”的部分比我其他大部分作品都要多……所以，当这些项目完成后，就有了一个大问题：“接下来该做什么？”（#22）
Also related to the work itself, we again detected the feeling of fatigue similar to that after an initial submission. This fatigue often involved a questioning of the effort, with respondents wondering “can I do this again?” and “was it worth it?” A similar feeling, though directed more at the publication process, was a sense of disappointment or worry that too much was sacrificed. Respondents wondered whether they had “removed” too much, or expressed that they “don’t really agree” with some of the changes made. As one respondent put it, “There’s a risk of feeling like the product reflects the views of several others and might be diluted somewhat— worst case you can feel like you sold out a little bit” (#27). 同样与工作本身相关的是，我们再次察觉到了类似初次提交后产生的疲惫感。这种疲惫常常伴随着对自身付出的质疑，受访者会自问“我还能再做一次吗？”以及“这样做值得吗？”。与之类似的感受（尽管更侧重于出版流程）是一种失望或担忧，即觉得牺牲了太多。受访者会疑惑自己是否“删减”得过多，或者表示对某些修改“并不真正认同”。正如一位受访者所言：“有可能会觉得成果反映了他人的观点，从而在一定程度上被稀释——最坏的情况是你会觉得自己有点‘背叛’了初衷”（#27）。
TABLE 4
表4
TABLE 4 (Continued)
表4（续）
Note: Each quote is followed by the participant number from our survey. 注：每个引语后均附有我们调查中的参与者编号。
Finally, also related to the process, several respondents expressed a trepidation about how the article would be received by readers. Interestingly, this was very similar to the trepidation expressed at the initial submission stage, except the target here widened from the review team to the authors’ peer group and larger reading public. One person worried that “no one will ever read it” (#30), whereas another respondent noted that after acceptance: 最后，与这一过程相关的还有，几位受访者表达了对文章会如何被读者接受的担忧。有趣的是，这与最初提交阶段所表达的担忧非常相似，只是这次的目标受众从评审团队扩大到了作者的同行群体和更广泛的读者群体。有人担心“永远不会有人读它”（#30），而另一位受访者则指出，在文章被接受后：
All my doubts about the paper surfaced. The problems I knew were there which even the reviewers didn’t pick up on. The relief that reviewers missed these issues was replaced by the fear that readers would see them. (#25) 我对这篇论文的所有疑虑都浮现出来了。我知道存在一些问题，连审稿人都没有发现。审稿人忽略这些问题带来的轻松感，被担心读者会发现这些问题的恐惧所取代。(#25)
How to “cope” with an acceptance: Celebrate, keep going, and stay humble. Obviously, getting an acceptance is the ultimate goal of the submission to AMR, and it may seem odd to suggest that coping strategies are necessary in the fact of such acceptance. 如何“应对”一份录用通知：庆祝、继续前进并保持谦逊。显然，获得录用是向AMR投稿的最终目标，在面对这样的录用时建议应对策略似乎有些奇怪。
But in terms of managing the emotional journey just completed, our respondents had plenty to say. Much like the rejection stage, these pieces of advice were more focused, with consistent suggestions to celebrate the accomplishment, (eventually) continue one’s work, and always stay humble. 但就刚刚完成的情感历程管理而言，我们的受访者有很多话想说。与拒绝阶段类似，这些建议更加具体，一致的建议包括庆祝成就、（最终）继续自己的工作以及始终保持谦逊。
Not surprisingly, the most common recommendation after acceptance was to take time to celebrate the acceptance, whether the suggestion was to “buy a piece of art” (#67), “take out your partner/dear ones for a nice dinner” (#50), or simply to “have a beer” (#45). For example: 不足为奇的是，录取后的最常见建议是花时间庆祝录取，无论是建议“买一件艺术品”（#67）、“带伴侣/亲人出去吃一顿丰盛的晚餐”（#50），还是仅仅“喝一杯啤酒”（#45）。例如：
Celebrate it! We don’t do that enough in our field, and are constantly running from one project/goal accomplishment to the next. Life’s too short for that. (#46) 庆祝它！在我们这个领域，我们做得还不够，总是从一个项目/目标的完成奔波到下一个。人生苦短，不应如此。（#46）
Such encouragement to celebrate was coupled with a suggestion to really “take time” to savor the accomplishment. This strategy was often exemplified by suggestions to take a break, whether a day or a longer vacation. For example: 这种鼓励庆祝的做法还伴随着一个建议，即真正“花时间”去品味这一成就。这种策略常通过建议休息（无论是一天还是更长的假期）来体现。例如：
Take time to celebrate with family and friends. Take time for self-care. Do something really fun and not related to work. Take a road trip to somewhere you’ve always wanted to go (but were always too busy to do it). (#51) 花些时间与家人和朋友庆祝。花些时间照顾自己。做一些真正有趣且与工作无关的事情。来一场公路旅行，去某个你一直想去但总是太忙没时间去的地方。(#51)
After such celebrations, authors noted how important it is to keep going. They suggested that authors follow through with next steps toward their program of research. Authors should share the paper with scholars they have cited or those who might cite the article in the future. Authors were also strongly encouraged to plan the next project, whether an empirical paper that continues their research or the next AMR submission. In fact, one respondent encouraged people to remember that they have to accomplish more than just publishing one paper: 在这样的庆祝活动之后，作者们指出坚持下去是多么重要。他们建议作者们推进研究计划的下一步。作者们应该与他们引用过的学者或未来可能引用该文章的学者分享论文。还强烈鼓励作者们规划下一个项目，无论是继续其研究的实证论文还是下一次AMR提交。事实上，一位受访者鼓励人们记住，他们必须完成的不仅仅是发表一篇论文：
You are still mortal. You may have gained a nice chip in the status bargaining game (if you care about that), but being a scholar (at least to me) means you need to show [yourself] to be more than a one-trick-pony. (#22) 你仍然是凡人。你可能在地位博弈游戏中获得了不错的筹码（如果你在乎这个的话），但作为一名学者（至少对我而言），意味着你需要证明自己不止是个“单行道”（只会一招的人）。(#22)
Implicit in this comment—but more explicit in many others—was a frequent admonition to stay humble. Multiple respondents noted that an acceptance is based not only on the authors’ ideas but also the work of others, such as coauthors, colleagues, friendly reviews, and the review team. 这种评论中隐含的——但在许多其他评论中更为明确的——是一种频繁的告诫，即要保持谦逊。多位受访者指出，一篇论文的接受不仅基于作者的想法，还基于他人的工作，比如合著者、同事、友好的评审以及评审团队的工作。
Remember that the paper didn’t get accepted because you’re amazing. It got accepted because you had a really generous set of people who believed in your ideas and you had enough grit and humility to listen to them. (#26) 记住，这篇论文被接受不是因为你很出色。它被接受是因为你有一群非常慷慨的人相信你的想法，而且你有足够的毅力和谦逊去倾听他们的意见。（#26）
As such, respondents repeatedly urged authors not to let the acceptance go to their heads. In fact, as one wrote somewhat ironically, “In six months, your dept. chair will want to know what you’ve done for publishing lately” (#9). Again, one paper does not make or break a career. Plus, as we share successes outside of our field, not everyone may appreciate the accomplishment. Case in point: 因此，受访者反复劝作者不要因论文被接受而自满。事实上，正如有人略带讽刺地写道：“六个月后，你的系主任会想知道你最近在发表方面做了什么”（#9）。同样，一篇论文并不会决定或毁掉一个人的职业生涯。此外，当我们在本领域之外分享成功时，并非所有人都会认可这一成就。典型例子是：
Don’t be a pain in the arse and gloat. I went into work in the New Year and my colleague asked how I was. I said I just got an acceptance for AMR. She said, “Oh, is that good?” I realized we all live in our own bubbles. (#25) 别那么烦人，还幸灾乐祸。新年我去上班，同事问我怎么样。我说我刚收到了AMR的录取通知。她说：“哦，那很好吗？”我意识到我们都活在自己的小世界里。（#25）
Overall, these strategies suggest that authors should take the time to celebrate an acceptance with those who care about their recent success. However, they recommend that authors maintain some degree of humility and use that mindset to launch the next project. 总体而言，这些策略表明，作者应该花时间与那些关心他们近期成功的人一起庆祝论文被接受。然而，他们建议作者保持一定程度的谦逊，并以这种心态开启下一个项目。
CONCLUSION
结论
In conducting this survey, we were struck by how affirming and helpful reading others’ experiences and coping strategies was for us as individuals. Writing theory—and writing for AMR specifically—can be uniquely joyful but also uniquely painful. These emotions surely derive from the personal investment we all make when developing theory—a pure representation of one’s unique ideas versus a reporting of empirical data. Therefore, knowing that the lows are normal and shared by many of the field’s best theorists (i.e., ERB members, many of whom are former editors and AEs) brought comfort to us, and we hope that it does so for you also. Meanwhile, understanding the highs can guide our focus toward those positive experiences—or at least inform us as to why we keep coming back despite the lows. Perhaps we are not actually masochists after all! Finally, we hope that the suggested coping strategies inspire more resiliency when writing theory, regardless of the writing and review process stage. 在进行这项调查时，我们惊讶地发现，阅读他人的经历和应对策略对我们个人而言是多么令人振奋且富有帮助。撰写理论——尤其是专门为《美国管理评论》（AMR）撰写——既可以是独特的快乐源泉，也可能是独特的痛苦来源。这些情绪无疑源于我们在发展理论时投入的个人情感——是对个人独特想法的纯粹表达，而非对实证数据的报告。因此，知道低谷是正常的，并且是该领域许多优秀理论家（即ERB成员，其中许多人曾是编辑和AE）共同经历的，这给我们带来了慰藉，我们也希望这能给你带来同样的感受。同时，理解那些“高光时刻”可以引导我们将注意力集中在这些积极体验上——或者至少让我们明白，尽管有低谷，我们为何仍会不断回归。也许我们终究不是受虐狂！最后，我们希望这些建议的应对策略能在撰写理论时激发更多的韧性，无论处于写作和评审过程的哪个阶段。
In addition, although we targeted the sections above to authors submitting to AMR, we see several takeaways for other stakeholders of the journal. Speaking to AEs and reviewers, we found that many highs stemmed from positive experiences with the review team itself. This is an important reminder to AEs, ERB members, and ad hoc reviewers about how vital it is to be constructive, kind, and developmental in handling every manuscript. Though rejections sting, even those ultimate decisions can become a source of positivity and energy for authors if we all do our sincere best to treat authors with care and humanity. 此外，尽管我们上述内容针对的是向AMR投稿的作者，但我们也看到了该期刊其他利益相关者的几点启示。与AE（编辑）和审稿人交流时，我们发现许多积极的经历源于与审稿团队本身的良好互动。这对AE、ERB成员和临时审稿人来说是一个重要的提醒：在处理每一篇稿件时，保持建设性、友善和发展性的态度至关重要。尽管拒稿令人痛心，但如果我们都尽最大努力以关怀和人文的态度对待作者，即使是最终的决定也能成为作者积极和充满活力的源泉。
Finally, speaking to those who coauthor with or mentor others (e.g., students, junior colleagues, or colleagues down the hall), we note the importance of helping each other and staying positive to sustain motivation for the hard work of writing for AMR. Although it is normal to feel demotivated after a rejection, author teams and advisors who embody the positive mindsets and coping strategies noted above can help sustain inspiration along the path. Can we encourage ourselves, coauthors, students, and colleagues to take pride in the accomplishment of submitting a manuscript regardless of the outcome? Can we encourage others to wait for the decision letter with a mindset of “whatever the decision, I look forward to constructive criticism to move my ideas forward?” Our hope is that, by showing that highs and lows at each stage are to be expected, all of us can aspire to these fruitful mindsets, whether for our own benefit or the benefit of the scholars around us. Remember, we’re all in this together! 最后，对于那些与他人合著或指导他人（例如学生、初级同事或隔壁的同事）的人，我们强调互相帮助和保持积极态度的重要性，以维持为《美国微生物学会评论》（AMR）撰写论文这一艰巨工作的动力。虽然被拒后感到气馁是正常的，但秉持上述积极心态和应对策略的作者团队和导师可以帮助大家在写作之路上持续保持灵感。我们能否鼓励自己、合著者、学生和同事为成功提交手稿这一成就感到自豪，无论结果如何？我们能否鼓励他人以“无论结果如何，我都期待建设性的批评以推动我的想法前进”的心态等待决定信？我们希望通过表明每个阶段的起伏都是正常的，我们所有人都能追求这些富有成效的心态，无论是为了自己的利益还是周围学者的利益。记住，我们都在这条路上并肩前行！
Copyright of Academy of Management Review is the property of Academy of Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. 《管理学会评论》的版权归管理学会所有，未经版权所有者明确许可，其内容不得复制、发送至多个网站或发布到电子讨论组。不过，用户可打印、下载或通过电子邮件发送文章供个人使用。