FROM THE EDITORS
致编辑
WHY I REJECTED YOUR PAPER: COMMON PITFALLS IN WRITING THEORY PAPERS AND HOW TO AVOID THEM
为什么我拒绝了你的论文：理论论文写作中的常见陷阱及避免方法
JOANNA T. CAMPBELL University of Cincinnati 乔安娜·T·坎贝尔 辛辛那提大学
RUTH V. AGUILERA Northeastern University Universitat Ramon Llull RUTH V. AGUILERA 东北大学 拉蒙·卢尔大学
In the last issue of AMR, our colleagues highlighted just how intensely emotional the process of publishing in AMR can be, and discussed specific coping strategies at each stage of the review process (Bundy, Shipp, & Brickson, 2022). As they outlined, each stage, from initial submission to acceptance or rejection, is accompanied by myriad feelings—both highs and lows. The lows associated with having a paper rejected have been well-documented. For example, Horn (2016) empirically examined the effect of rejection and showed that it puts the self-esteem and identity of scholars at risk. In a similar vein, Day (2011) discussed emotional responses to manuscript rejection and various coping strategies (on rejection and career resilience, see also Walker, 2019). Less often discussed are the negative emotions associate editors (AEs) experience when they have to reject a paper, even when it is clear that a lot of work has been put into the manuscript. Emotions can be even more crushing when we need to reject a paper after a reviseand-resubmit (R&R) invitation and the authors have again devoted months of work to revising the paper. The AE’s goal is to publish papers—there is no greater joy in an AE’s world than accepting a paper for publication, and perhaps no harder decision than having to reject a revision. With this in mind, we would like to share some of the AEs’ frequently cited reasons for rejection at both the initial submission and the revision stage, as well as suggesting possible remedies. 在上一期《AMR》中，我们的同事强调了在AMR发表论文的过程是多么情绪化，并讨论了评审过程每个阶段的具体应对策略（Bundy, Shipp, & Brickson, 2022）。正如他们所概述的，从最初提交到接受或拒绝，每个阶段都伴随着无数的情绪——有起有落。论文被拒的低谷已被充分记录。例如，Horn（2016）实证研究了拒稿的影响，发现这会危及学者的自尊和身份认同。同样，Day（2011）讨论了对稿件拒稿的情绪反应以及各种应对策略（关于拒稿和职业韧性，也可参见Walker, 2019）。较少被讨论的是，当编辑（AEs）不得不拒稿时，即使很明显稿件投入了大量工作，他们也会经历负面情绪。当编辑在收到作者再次投入数月时间修改的“修改后重投”（R&R）邀请后仍需拒稿时，情绪的打击可能更大。编辑的目标是发表论文——在编辑的世界里，没有什么比接受一篇论文发表更令人愉悦的了，或许也没有什么决定比拒稿修改更艰难。考虑到这一点，我们想分享编辑在初始提交和修改阶段拒稿的常见原因，并提出可能的补救措施。
Let’s be honest—success at a premier journal is rare, particularly at the first submission stage. At AMR, historically (over the past five years, 20172021)— on average—approximately $4 4 %$ of papers get desk rejected, and an additional $4 1 %$ get rejected after initial review. If you receive a R&R decision $( 1 5 % )$ , your odds improve—more than half of revisions pass the bar for further consideration. But $4 3 %$ fall into the “heartbreak group”—papers that get rejected after the second review and will never get published in AMR despite the initial promise (and many hours of effort on the part of the authors and the entire review team). There are multiple things that can go wrong at each stage of the review process, and not all of them are fully under the authors’ control; however, most of them are. Keep in mind that you can greatly improve the odds of receiving a further revision opportunity or acceptance by avoiding common pitfalls and stumbling blocks. While there is some guidance on empirical papers (Daft, 1985; Gardner, 2020)—where research design, data quality, and analysis issues are often the driving reason for rejection—we would like to break down the main reasons why conceptual papers are often rejected. Let’s be honest—在顶级期刊发表成功是罕见的，尤其是在首次投稿阶段。在AMR（美国管理学会期刊），历史上（过去五年，2017-2021年）——平均而言——约有44%的论文被直接拒稿，另有41%在初步评审后被拒。如果收到“修改后重投”（R&R）的决定（15%的情况），你的机会会增加——超过一半的修改稿会通过进一步评审的门槛。但有43%的论文会落入“心碎组”——这些论文在第二次评审后被拒，尽管最初有潜力（以及作者和整个评审团队付出的大量时间和精力），却永远无法在AMR发表。评审过程的每个阶段都可能出现多种问题，并非所有问题都完全在作者的控制范围内；不过，大多数问题是可以控制的。请记住，通过避免常见的陷阱和障碍，你可以大大提高获得进一步修改机会或被接受的几率。虽然已有一些关于实证论文的指导（Daft, 1985；Gardner, 2020）——在这些论文中，研究设计、数据质量和分析问题往往是拒稿的主要原因——但我们希望详细分析概念性论文常被拒的主要原因。
About two years into our term, we reached out to our fellow AMR AEs and surveyed them on two issues: (a) the most common reasons they rejected a first submission, and (b) the most common reasons they rejected a revised paper. To our surprise, beyond differences in how each AE ranked a particular issue (e.g., reason a versus reason $b$ ), there was a lot of consistency in their responses. That is good news for authors—since we generally agree on the key issues, we can provide you with specific feedback on what to avoid and where to focus your attention. We discuss the consolidated feedback below, starting with desk rejections. 在我们任期约两年时，我们联系了其他AMR的AE（助理编辑），并就两个问题对他们进行了调查：(a) 他们拒绝首次投稿的最常见原因，以及 (b) 他们拒绝修改稿的最常见原因。令我们惊讶的是，除了每位AE对特定问题的排名存在差异（例如，原因a与原因b）外，他们的回答中存在很多一致性。这对作者来说是个好消息——因为我们总体上对关键问题达成了共识，我们可以为你提供关于应避免什么以及应关注什么的具体反馈。我们将在下面讨论整合后的反馈，首先从desk rejection（desk reject：直接拒稿，指初审阶段即被拒绝）开始。
INITIAL SUBMISSION: DESK REJECT
初始提交：桌面驳回
When a paper is desk rejected, it does not leave the editor’s (or AE’s) proverbial desk. They read the paper and write a desk reject editorial letter to the submitting author(s) explaining the decision not to send the paper out for further review. To some authors, this can feel like a slap in the face—they worked very hard and the paper did not even make it to full review. Why do papers get rejected at this stage? 当一篇论文被拒稿（desk rejected）时，它并没有离开编辑（或副编辑，AE）的办公桌。他们会阅读这篇论文，并向投稿作者写一封拒稿编辑信，解释不将论文送审进一步评审的决定。对一些作者来说，这可能感觉像是一记耳光——他们付出了很大的努力，但论文甚至没有进入全面评审阶段。为什么论文会在这个阶段被拒稿？
Often, the reason is a lack of fit with the journal in terms of paper type—for example, it is an empirical piece (i.e., contains data or analyses), a case study, a review article, or an opinion piece. For instance, you may have strong negative feelings about agency theory or the resource-based view of the firm; however, a paper simply outlining perceived problems with said theory without joining the conversation in the literature and proposing specific solutions is not a good fit for AMR. This lack of fit with the journal can also manifest in terms of disciplinary fit—for example, a paper about accounting practices or marketing strategies with no real management or organizational theory implications. One of us once desk rejected a paper that included only two references to other work in management. If you are not connecting with and contributing to the existing conversations and debates in our literature, then we are not the right audience for your work (even though the paper may in fact offer a contribution to a different field). Finally, despite its title, AMR is not a journal that publishes review pieces; integrative reviews are the focus of the Academy of Management Annals. AMR seeks papers that: (a) develop new theory, (b) significantly challenge or enhance existing theory, (c) craft ways to improve the process of theory development, and (d) synthesize diverse ideas into fresh, if not entirely new, theory (Thatcher & Fisher, 2022). Please note that in the latter case, it is a necessary condition that you develop novel, original ideas beyond an in-depth discussion of the existing literature. Zahra and George’s (2002) reconceptualization of absorptive capacity is a good example. 通常，原因在于论文类型与期刊不匹配——例如，它是一篇实证研究（即包含数据或分析）、案例研究、综述文章或观点文章。例如，你可能对代理理论或企业资源基础观有强烈的负面看法；然而，一篇仅概述对上述理论的感知问题而不参与文献讨论并提出具体解决方案的论文，并不适合《管理学会评论》（AMR）。这种与期刊的不匹配也可能体现在学科适配性方面——例如，一篇关于会计实践或营销策略的论文，却没有真正涉及管理或组织理论的影响。我们中的一人曾退稿一篇仅引用两篇管理领域其他研究的论文。如果你没有参与并为我们文献中的现有讨论和辩论做出贡献，那么我们就不是你作品的合适受众（尽管该论文实际上可能对其他领域有贡献）。最后，尽管标题如此，AMR 并非发表综述文章的期刊；整合性综述是《管理学会年鉴》的重点。AMR 寻求以下类型的论文：(a) 发展新理论，(b) 显著挑战或改进现有理论，(c) 构建改进理论发展过程的方法，以及 (d) 将不同观点综合成新颖（即便不完全是全新）的理论（Thatcher & Fisher, 2022）。请注意，在后一种情况下，除了深入讨论现有文献外，你还必须提出新颖、原创的观点。Zahra 和 George（2002）对吸收能力的重新概念化就是一个很好的例子。
Another rather simple (or easily remedied) common reason that a paper gets desk rejected is that the paper does not follow AMR’s publication guidelines and overall accepted norms. For example, while AMR does not have strict page limits for first submissions, if the body of your paper is over 30 pages long it could be a symptom that the paper’s ideas are unfocused. Moreover, reviewers tend to bristle at papers that are too long. Similarly, including unnecessary Greek letters or Latin words where simple language would get the point across equally well is also not advised. Papers also get desk rejected if there is clearly too much breadth at the expense of depth— for example, the manuscript tries to integrate six theoretical perspectives and offers 15 propositions. (Scope is a persistent problem that likes to rear its ugly head at various stages, as you will see below—but we try to catch the egregious cases early on.) Finally, your paper will likely get desk rejected if the key sections of a paper do not exist (e.g., the introduction or the discussion section comprises a single cursory paragraph). 论文被直接拒稿的另一个相当简单（或容易补救）的常见原因是论文未遵循AMR的出版指南和整体公认规范。例如，虽然AMR对首次投稿没有严格的页数限制，但如果你的论文正文超过30页，这可能表明论文的观点不够集中。此外，审稿人往往会对过长的论文感到不满。同样，在简单语言同样能清晰传达观点的情况下，使用不必要的希腊字母或拉丁词也是不建议的。如果论文明显广度过大而深度不足，也会被直接拒稿——例如，手稿试图整合六个理论视角并提出15个命题。（范围问题是一个持续存在的问题，会在各个阶段冒头，正如你将在下面看到的——但我们会尽量尽早发现这些严重的情况。）最后，如果论文的关键部分缺失（例如，引言或讨论部分仅由一段粗略的内容组成），你的论文很可能会被直接拒稿。
The bright side of a desk reject decision at AMR, however, is that the paper can be resubmitted to AMR again as long as the authors address the major issues behind the decision. This means you can get another shot with the same core idea—not the worst outcome, if you think about it. Desk rejections save the time and energy of both our reviewers and the authors. Once a paper goes under full review, it can never be submitted again unless it is invited for revision after the first review. 然而，AMR 对论文的拒稿决定也有积极的一面，即只要作者解决了拒稿背后的主要问题，论文就可以再次提交给 AMR。这意味着你可以用同样的核心思路再次尝试——从这个角度来看，这并非最坏的结果。拒稿节省了审稿人和作者双方的时间与精力。一旦论文进入全面评审阶段，除非在首次评审后收到修订邀请，否则将永远无法再次提交。
Remedies
补救措施
The best way to avoid a desk rejection is to familiarize yourself with AMR articles and ongoing debates in the field. There is certainly not a set formula on how to write AMR papers (Cornelissen, 2017; Fulmer, 2012; Thatcher & Fisher, 2022) as they come in all shapes and colors, but they have a common core in what they seek to accomplish and what the AMR audience expects. We always recommend that you obtain honest peer feedback—ideally, from an AMR author or an editorial board member—prior to submission, as the aforementioned red flags should be easy to identify even after a cursory read. Peer feedback may be especially important if you are trained in a different discipline (e.g., sociology, philosophy, economics, or marketing) and would like to publish in AMR—if none of your coauthors is a management scholar, it is a good idea to ask one of your management colleagues to take a critical look at your paper prior to submission. Finally, as one of our mentors once said, “ABC—Always. Be. Cutting.” Sure, you do not want to cut the core ideas, but there is almost always something that could be trimmed to make the paper tighter, clearer, and more compelling. Do not rush your submission—the extra time you spend up front is well worth the investment. 避免被拒稿的最佳方法是熟悉AMR（行动研究方法）文章以及该领域的持续讨论。撰写AMR论文并没有固定的公式（Cornelissen, 2017; Fulmer, 2012; Thatcher & Fisher, 2022），因为它们形式多样，但它们在目标和AMR受众期望方面有共同的核心。我们始终建议您在提交前获取诚实的同行反馈——理想情况下，来自AMR作者或编辑委员会成员——因为上述“红色警报”即使在粗略阅读后也应该容易识别。如果您来自不同学科（例如社会学、哲学、经济学或市场营销）并希望在AMR发表论文，同行反馈可能尤为重要——如果您的合著者中没有管理学者，最好在提交前请一位管理领域的同事批判性地审阅您的论文。最后，正如我们的一位导师曾说的：“ABC——Always. Be. Cutting.”（始终.精简.）。当然，您不想删减核心思想，但几乎总有一些内容可以精简，以使论文更紧凑、更清晰、更有说服力。不要仓促提交——前期投入的额外时间非常值得。
INITIAL SUBMISSION: REJECTION AFTER FIRST REVIEW
初始提交：首次审核后被拒
Your paper made it to the reviewers and back— congratulations! But then you get the disappointing news that we will not be able to accept your manuscript or ask for a revision. You have reached the end of the road with this manuscript at AMR. If we are doing our jobs well, at least (we hope) you got some good, developmental feedback on your work. If you receive a rejection at this stage, the odds are that the number one reason is that the paper fails to deliver a significant theoretical contribution. What does this mean in practice? 你的论文已提交给评审人并完成评审——恭喜！但随后你会收到令人失望的消息：我们无法接受你的稿件或要求你进行修改。在AMR，你的这篇稿件已走到了终点。如果我们的工作做得好，至少（我们希望）你能从你的研究中获得一些有价值的发展性反馈。如果在这个阶段收到拒稿通知，最可能的首要原因是你的论文未能提供重大的理论贡献。这在实际中意味着什么？
Based on the comments we received from our AE colleagues and our experience, the “lack of contribution” category typically includes two different groups. We will label the first one not joining a conversation. This is perhaps best illustrated with a metaphor that originated from Anne Huff’s (1999) excellent chapter on writing as a conversation.1 Here it goes: Imagine management scholarship as one big ballroom at the Academy of Management annual meeting—one big enough to house all the micro and macro scholars, organizational theorists, researchers studying social issues in management, etc. Now imagine that all these scholars congregate in little groups, as people typically do at these types of gatherings, organized by domain or research topic. There are many groups—some larger, some smaller—carrying on a conversation about what they find important and fascinating within that area of research, and trying to solve current problems. Imagine walking into this ballroom and immediately loudly talking to yourself rather than joining one of the groups. Of course, you would never do that because presumably you would attend this gathering to join a conversation. Joining a conversation means that you clearly know which group or groups you are speaking to. If you want to have a meaningful conversation, you will likely make it to only one or two circles of people. If you are flitting around from one group to another, you will not make a mark. 根据我们从客户执行（AE）同事那里收到的反馈以及我们的经验，“缺乏贡献”这一类别通常包含两个不同的群体。我们将第一个群体标记为“不参与对话”。这一点或许可以用一个隐喻来最好地说明，该隐喻源自Anne Huff（1999）关于“写作即对话”的精彩章节。1 具体来说：想象管理领域的学术研究如同管理学会（Academy of Management）年度会议上的一个大宴会厅——这个宴会厅足够容纳所有微观和宏观学者、组织理论家、研究管理领域社会问题的研究者等。现在，想象所有这些学者像人们在这类聚会上通常做的那样，按领域或研究主题分成一个个小群体聚集。有许多群体——有的规模大，有的规模小——他们围绕各自研究领域内认为重要且有趣的内容展开对话，并试图解决当前的问题。想象你走进这个宴会厅，立刻大声自言自语，而不是加入其中一个群体。当然，你绝不会这么做，因为你参加这个聚会的目的显然是为了加入一场对话。加入对话意味着你清楚地知道自己在与哪个或哪些群体交流。如果你想进行一场有意义的对话，你可能只会进入一两个小圈子。如果你在各个群体间游移不定，你就不会留下任何影响。
Let us now imagine that you have identified the group you want to join. You have heard enough of the conversation that you think you know where it currently stands (i.e., What are they talking about?), you have enough background that you can join (i.e., Do I know enough about this topic?), and you think you can meaningfully add to it (i.e., Can I contribute something insightful?). Any skilled conversationalist knows that the key is to (a) respectfully listen; (b) when it is your turn to speak, acknowledge what has been said before and build on that; and (c) leave room for the next speaker to contribute. Conversations tend to fall into predictable patterns, and when you think of our scholarship this way it is easier to imagine what works well and what does not. For example, you wouldn’t walk up to a group of people you have never met and say, “You are all completely wrong. Here’s how I think you should think about this.” You also wouldn’t say something that has nothing to do with what’s been said immediately before. Similarly, you wouldn’t change topics with every sentence, making your train of thought hard to follow. If you think of research as an ongoing social conversation, then you already have a good start. Think of your manuscript introduction as your formal statement of joining that conversation. 现在让我们设想你已经确定了想要加入的群体。你已经听了足够多的对话内容，觉得自己了解他们当前的讨论状态（即：他们在讨论什么？），你有足够的背景知识来参与（即：我对这个话题了解得够多吗？），并且你认为自己能够有意义地贡献（即：我能提出有见地的内容吗？）。任何有经验的对话者都知道，关键在于（a）尊重地倾听；（b）轮到你发言时，认可之前所说的内容并在此基础上展开；（c）给下一个发言者留出贡献的空间。对话往往会遵循可预测的模式，当你这样看待我们的学术研究时，就更容易想象哪些做法有效、哪些无效。例如，你不会直接走到一群从未见过的人面前说：“你们全都错了。这是我认为你们应该如何思考这个问题的方式。”你也不会说一些与之前刚刚讨论的内容完全无关的话。同样，你不会每句话都换一个话题，让别人难以跟上你的思路。如果你把研究看作一场持续进行的社交对话，那么你已经有了一个良好的开端。把你的手稿引言看作是你正式加入这场对话的声明。
The second common “lack of contribution” problem stems from lack of novelty. This happens when a paper is well-written and provides an insightful application of a theory to a given area of research, but there is nothing new enough to make the reader go: “Aha! That’s interesting!” Or maybe there are some new ideas, but they are rather incremental—they do not “move the needle” in a significant way. In short, what we as a journal are looking for is ideas that somehow advance or alter the conversation in a meaningful way. Here is where our Academy meeting ballroom metaphor can be helpful again. You cannot just nod. You cannot simply state what has been said before in a different way. Think of the conversations you tend to find most interesting and memorable—there is usually some tension, a puzzle, or someone makes you see a topic or phenomenon in a different light. It makes you care about the other person’s viewpoint and what they have to say. It may even change your own viewpoint. 第二个常见的“缺乏贡献”问题源于缺乏新颖性。当一篇论文写得很好，并且对某个特定研究领域进行了有洞察力的理论应用，但没有足够新颖的内容让读者发出“啊哈！这很有趣！”的感叹时，就会出现这种情况。或者，可能有一些新想法，但它们相当渐进——并没有在重大意义上“推动进展”。简而言之，我们作为期刊所寻找的是能够以某种方式有意义地推进或改变讨论的想法。在这里，我们的学术会议宴会厅隐喻再次变得有用。你不能只是点头附和。你不能简单地用不同的方式重复别人说过的话。想想你通常觉得最有趣和难忘的对话——通常会有一些张力、一个谜题，或者有人让你从不同的角度看待一个主题或现象。这会让你关心对方的观点以及他们要说的话。它甚至可能改变你自己的观点。
The second category of problems often leading to rejection in the first round is lack of clarity. Often, the paper is simply difficult to understand. Our fellow AEs articulated this problem as “overly complex,” “too many moving parts,” “jumping around,” “messy,” and—most frequently—“hard to follow.” It is difficult to overstate how often this happens—an editor sits down to read the paper and struggles to make it through a single section without going back and rereading it. Sometimes, they must go back to the very start of the manuscript. They put it down, think about it, and reread it again. Think of your writing as leading someone through an ancient forest—it is dark and a little eerie, there are many paths, and your job is to lead the person through the forest using the straightest and clearest path. It is easy to get distracted and lead someone on an exciting side path, but remember— you are trying to get them from one end to another in as straight a line as possible. Otherwise, you risk losing the person you are trying to lead. As you edit your paper, ask yourself the question: “How can I move forward with less effort? What can I cut out and still arrive at the same place?” In a real-life conversation tangents are more acceptable, but in academic writing you should avoid them at all costs. This includes using a large number of footnotes or too many citations to make one point—an occasional footnote is fine, as are exemplary citations, but try to limit them to a handful. 第二类常导致首轮被拒的问题是缺乏清晰度。通常，论文会让人难以理解。我们的同行编辑将这个问题描述为“过于复杂”“部件过多”“跳跃性强”“混乱”，而最常被提及的是“难以跟进”。这种情况发生的频率之高，怎么强调都不为过——编辑坐下读论文时，往往要反复回溯、重读，才能勉强读完一个章节，有时甚至要从头重新阅读。他们会放下论文，思考后再读一遍。把你的写作想象成带领某人穿过一片古老的森林——那里漆黑且有些诡异，岔路众多，你的任务是用最笔直、最清晰的路径引导对方穿过森林。很容易分心，把人引向一条令人兴奋的旁径，但要记住——你是要让他们尽可能直线地从一端走到另一端，否则你可能会失去你试图引导的人。在编辑论文时，问问自己：“我怎样才能用更少的精力推进？我可以删减哪些内容而不影响最终结论？”在现实对话中，跑题是可以接受的，但在学术写作中，你必须不惜一切代价避免跑题。这包括用大量脚注或过多引用去阐述一个观点——偶尔的脚注是可以的，典型的引用也没问题，但要尽量限制在少数几个。
The third category of paper-killers can be summarized as scope problems. This typically takes the form of the authors trying to do too much—characteristic AE responses in this area are “trying to do way too much,” “too broad,” and “not cohesive.” One AE described this problem as “shooting too high and trying to do too much, which resulted in [the authors] accomplishing nothing concrete.” It is tempting to try to create a grand theory of a given area or phenomenon, but this will rarely give you enough room to develop a meaningful contribution. Keep in mind that AMR is looking for a large contributions in terms of impact, not scope. Sometimes, however, the paper suffers from the opposite problem—the contribution is “too narrow.” This makes appropriate scope a tricky balancing act, and achieving it might feel more like art than science. In our experience, this is where a R&R process can really help refine the scope, but you cannot be too far off the mark to start with. 论文杀手的第三类问题可以概括为范围问题。这类问题通常表现为作者试图做的事情太多——在这方面，审稿人（AE）的典型反馈是“尝试做的事情太多”“范围太广”以及“缺乏连贯性”。一位审稿人将这个问题描述为“目标定得太高，试图做太多事情，结果[作者]没有取得任何具体成果”。试图为某个领域或现象构建一个宏大的理论是很有吸引力的，但这很少能给你足够的空间来做出有意义的贡献。要记住，AMR看重的是贡献的影响力大小，而非范围大小。不过，有时论文又会陷入相反的问题——贡献“过于狭窄”。找到合适的范围是一个棘手的平衡过程，实现这一点可能更像是一门艺术而非科学。根据我们的经验，在这个阶段，修改与重审（R&R）流程可以真正帮助优化范围，但一开始也不能偏离太远。
The fourth category of problems revolves around weak connections to existing literature. This often manifests in “talking at” rather than “talking with” a given literature. At times, authors ignore or sidestep what we already know and, as a result, it looks like they are neglecting the current conversation. You need to firmly ground your paper in the prior relevant research, properly acknowledging the key ideas that have been developed before. A term we often use is “engage”—you must fully engage with the literature(s) to which your paper aims to speak. That does not mean agree with but, rather, give full credit and consideration. Building on prior work is what allows the conversation to move forward, and missing connections to key works is going to raise eyebrows in the review process. Your reviewers are subject matter experts, so they will pick up on any missing links. 第四类问题涉及与现有文献的薄弱联系。这通常表现为“对文献进行单向论述”而非“与文献展开对话”。有时，作者会忽视或回避我们已知的内容，结果看起来像是在忽略当前的学术讨论。你需要让你的论文坚实扎根于先前的相关研究，恰当认可之前已发展出的关键观点。我们常使用的一个术语是“参与”——你必须充分“参与”到你的论文所针对的文献中。这并不意味着要认同，而是要给予充分的肯定和考量。在前人工作的基础上推进，才能推动学术讨论向前发展，而遗漏与关键文献的联系会在评审过程中引起质疑。你的评审专家是该领域的专家，所以他们会发现任何缺失的联系。
The fifth category of problems centers on weaknesses in the logic of the theorizing—such as when the predictions themselves are not adequately grounded and lack proper argumentative support. This occurs when explanatory mechanisms are not clear or fully developed and, as a result, the arguments seem weak. One instance of this is when authors use examples to illustrate their points in lieu of building on the conceptual literature. While examples, quotes, and metaphors can be a great way to bring your theory to life, they cannot substitute for theoretical arguments—developing the how, when, or why. Another problem relating to logic is that constructs are not (well-) defined (or are not used consistently throughout). This is particularly salient when the paper seeks to develop a new concept but the problem is much more pervasive. At times, the editor makes it through the entire paper questioning, “What is $X ,$ really?” We suggest creating a glossary of key constructs for use between you and your coauthors, which might help guarantee that constructs are defined clearly, early on in the paper, and then used consistently. This exercise will also help you decide whether you have too many core constructs and need to reduce them. 第五类问题聚焦于理论构建逻辑中的缺陷——例如，当预测本身缺乏充分依据且缺乏恰当的论证支持时。这种情况发生在解释机制不清晰或未充分发展时，因此论点显得薄弱。其中一个例子是作者用例子来阐述观点，而非基于概念性文献进行深入探讨。虽然例子、引语和隐喻可以很好地让理论生动起来，但它们无法替代理论论证——即阐述“如何”“何时”或“为何”。另一个与逻辑相关的问题是概念（well-）定义不明确（或在全文中使用不一致）。当论文试图提出新概念时，这一问题尤为突出，但实际上它更为普遍。有时，编辑通读整篇论文时会不断质疑：“X到底是什么？”我们建议创建一个关键概念词汇表，供你和合著者使用，这可能有助于确保概念在论文早期就被清晰定义并始终如一地使用。这一练习还将帮助你判断是否拥有过多核心概念，从而需要精简它们。
The last category is more general and concerns the very nature of the paper. Sometimes, the paper seems like a better fit for a different journal in a way that wasn’t immediately apparent (and explains why the paper did not initially get desk rejected). This generally takes one of two forms: (a) The paper is more of a theoretically grounded review piece (centered on review, description, and integrating what has been done before, rather than new theory development) and thus better suited for a journal such as Academy of Management Annals; or (b) the model seems easily testable within the scope of a single empirical study, and thus better suited for a publication like Academy of Management Journal. A third category of papers engages in an application exercise of a given theory to a particular phenomenon or managerial challenge. Thus, the authors might aim to make a theoretical contribution by applying existing theory to a specific situation, phenomenon, or context, rather than starting from the theory and seeing how different dimensions of a given phenomenon or context may put boundary conditions on the theory. In other words, keep in mind that theoretical development should emanate from the ideas, while examples and illustrations—including interesting contexts and phenomena—should only be used to exemplify and highlight these conceptual ideas. 最后一类更具普遍性，涉及论文的本质。有时，这篇论文似乎更适合发表在另一个期刊上，而这种适配性并非一开始就显而易见（这也解释了为何该论文最初未被直接拒稿）。这种情况通常有两种表现形式：(a) 该论文更像是一篇基于理论的综述文章（侧重于回顾、描述和整合前人研究成果，而非发展新理论），因此更适合发表在《管理学会年鉴》（Academy of Management Annals）这类期刊；或 (b) 该模型似乎可以在单一实证研究的范围内轻松验证，因此更适合发表在《管理学会期刊》（Academy of Management Journal）这类刊物。第三类论文会将某一既定理论应用于特定现象或管理挑战，开展应用实践。因此，作者的目标可能是通过将现有理论应用于特定情境、现象或背景来做出理论贡献，而非从理论出发，探讨某一现象或背景的不同维度如何对理论施加边界条件。换句话说，需要牢记：理论发展应源于概念思想，而示例和说明（包括有趣的情境和现象）仅用于举例和突出这些概念性思想。
Remedies
补救措施
In sum, while there are many different potential pitfalls in writing theory papers, most of them are common and pervasive. To reiterate our advice above, you need to ensure that you are joining and engaging with a current relevant conversation and meaningfully building on extant literature. Your ideas must be novel and advance the conversation in a significant (i.e., not incremental) way. You need to be organized, focused, and stick to the task at hand. Each section needs to logically follow from the preceding section, each paragraph needs to perfectly follow the preceding paragraph, and each sentence needs to naturally follow the previous sentence. And anything that is not absolutely essential can—and should—go. Two techniques that might help you revise your work and test whether your main ideas clearly come through, stand out, and are supported by theory are, first, distilling the entire paper to bullet points in a PowerPoint presentation or “reverse outlining”—which entails identifying the topic sentences in each paragraph. It is surprising how quickly using these unforgiving tools can uncover the lack of clarity and leaps in your logic. Be on the lookout for scope problems and ask yourself: “Is this too narrow of a scope? Or is it too broad?"—be your own harshest critic there. Second, ensure that all the links to existing literature have been fully fleshed out, the constructs are clearly defined early on and applied consistently throughout the paper, and your arguments rest on sound logic and underlying theory rather than examples and conjecture. 总之，虽然撰写理论论文存在许多不同的潜在陷阱，但大多数陷阱都是普遍且常见的。重申我们之前的建议：你需要确保自己参与到当前相关的学术对话中，并对现有文献进行有意义的拓展。你的观点必须具有新颖性，并且以重大（即非渐进式）的方式推动该对话的发展。你需要条理清晰、目标明确，并专注于手头的任务。每个部分都应从前一部分逻辑地过渡而来，每个段落都应从前一段自然衔接，每个句子也应从前一句顺畅引出。任何非绝对必要的内容都可以且应该删除。有两种技巧可能有助于你修改论文并检验你的主要观点是否清晰传达、突出且有理论支撑：首先，将整篇论文提炼成PowerPoint演示文稿中的要点，或进行“反向大纲”——即识别每个段落的主题句。令人惊讶的是，使用这些严格的工具能迅速发现逻辑中的不清晰之处和跳跃。要留意范围问题，并问自己：“这个范围是否太窄？或者太宽泛？”——在这方面要做自己最严厉的批评者。其次，确保所有与现有文献的联系都已充分阐述，核心概念在论文早期就被清晰定义并在全文中一致应用，并且你的论点基于合理的逻辑和基础理论，而非例子和推测。
From a practical point of view, remember that it is critical that you have colleagues look at your work for candid feedback before you submit it to AMR. This can take several forms and they are all useful depending on the stage you are at: ask an expert in the area to read and comment on your introduction; present it in an internal or departmental workshop; email the manuscript to one or two close colleagues in the field for unguarded (that is, not just positive) feedback—committing to returning the favor in the near future; have someone in a different area read it for internal logic and persuasion; discuss it with your colleagues at lunch; or present it at a conference or at a different institution. In a nutshell, “test-drive it” as much as you can before you submit it. We sometimes talk about academia as “the marketplace of ideas,” and, just like a company would never release a new but costly-to-develop product without acquiring feedback from its intended customer group along the way, you should not submit a paper without testing it with your academic audience. 从实际角度出发，要记住在向AMR提交工作前，让同事对你的成果提供坦诚反馈至关重要。这可以有多种形式，且根据你所处的阶段，这些形式都很有用：请该领域的专家阅读并评论你的引言；在内部或部门研讨会上展示它；给该领域一两位亲密同事发邮件，获取毫无保留（即不只是正面的）的反馈——并承诺在不久的将来回报这份帮助；让不同领域的人阅读以检查内部逻辑和说服力；午餐时与同事讨论；或在会议或其他机构进行展示。简而言之，在提交前尽可能多地“试驾”你的成果。我们有时会将学术界称为“思想的市场”，就像一家公司绝不会在推出一款新的但开发成本高昂的产品前，不先从目标客户群体那里获取反馈一样，你也不应该在没有通过学术受众测试你的论文前就提交它。
REVISION: REJECTION AFTER SECOND REVIEW
修订：第二次审核后驳回
When a paper gets a R&R invitation, you have your foot in the door. The AE has seen the potential in your paper and is hoping that it gets realized. AEs are on your side! Recall—our job is to publish papers. Yet, sometimes we must make the incredibly difficult decision of rejecting an R&R—a paper that has gone through a second round of review. Because rejection after a third round of review is even more crushing, our goal is to never get there. The flipside of that is that we often must make rejection decisions when the authors simply have not made as much progress as we were hoping for. The potential may still be there, but the paper has not progressed the way we expect it to in order to have confidence in a successful outcome. What are the most common reasons behind this? 当一篇论文收到“修改后重投”（R&R）的邀请时，你已经离成功发表更近一步了。AE（编辑）已经看到了你论文的潜力，并希望这种潜力能够实现。AE们是站在你这边的！要记住——我们的工作是发表论文。然而，有时我们必须做出极其艰难的决定，拒绝一篇经过第二轮评审的“修改后重投”论文。因为第三轮评审后的拒稿会更加令人沮丧，所以我们的目标是绝不让论文走到那一步。但另一方面，我们经常必须在作者的进展没有达到我们期望的程度时做出拒稿决定。潜力可能仍然存在，但论文并没有按照我们期望的方式取得进展，以至于我们无法对其成功发表抱有信心。这种情况背后最常见的原因是什么？
The number one reason is that the theoretical contribution is still not there—in the words of a fellow AMR AE, the “rough nugget” didn’t develop into a “rough diamond.” There may still be a diamond buried in there, but at that moment it still looks like just a rock. There was a lot of agreement on our team on this being the key problem at the revision stage, which was also broadly summarized by our fellow AEs as “still struggles to identify the conversation,” “the ideas are still underdeveloped,” “the paper has not sufficiently advanced,” “does not move the needle,” and “contribution has not crystallized.” Often, an R&R is granted in the hopes that the contribution can be fully articulated and developed, and sometimes it does not come through. Other times, once the authors have responded to the AE’s and reviewers’ initial comments, it becomes clear that there was nothing novel or interesting enough at the core of the paper. In other words, the lack of contribution sometimes only becomes apparent after the paper has gone through a round of revision. 首要原因是理论贡献仍然缺失——用一位同为AMR AE（Associate Editor）的同行的话说，就是“粗糙的金块”尚未发展成“粗糙的钻石”。也许钻石仍埋藏其中，但在那一刻，它看起来仍然只是一块石头。我们团队在这一点上达成了广泛共识：这是修改阶段的关键问题。其他AE同行也将其概括为“仍难以识别对话”“观点仍未充分发展”“论文尚未取得足够进展”“未能推动关键进展”以及“贡献尚未明确”。通常，会给予R&R（Resubmission with Revisions，修回重投）的决定，希望作者能充分阐述和发展其贡献，但有时这种希望无法实现。其他时候，一旦作者回应了AE和审稿人的初步意见，就会发现论文核心中没有足够新颖或有趣的内容。换句话说，贡献的缺失有时只有在论文经过一轮修改后才会显现出来。
The second major reason we often reject a revision is that the authors did not address the concerns of the AE or the reviewers. They may have sidestepped some of the key issues or failed to give enough attention to or effort in responding to the queries. We want to be clear—you do not always have to follow all the suggestions; in fact, it sometimes may be impossible to do so given the myriad suggestions you receive (although we aim to point out areas of agreement and the most fruitful paths). You tend to have a fair amount of discretion because we want the authors to retain their own voice. However, you must attend to, consider, and diligently respond to each and every concern and question raised, even to simply state that you do not agree and therefore you will take another path. Multiple AEs noted that authors do not always address the AE’s or the reviewers’ feedback, fail to push the revision in response, do not make substantial changes, or focus only on select or tangential issues while failing to address the real thorny problems pointed out by the review team. There is no amount of handwaving you can do to mask problems in your theory. 我们经常拒绝修改的第二个主要原因是作者没有回应AE（编辑）或审稿人的关切。他们可能回避了一些关键问题，或者在回应疑问时投入的关注或努力不足。我们需要明确一点——你不必总是遵循所有建议；事实上，考虑到你收到的无数建议，有时根本不可能做到这一点（尽管我们的目标是指出共识领域和最有成效的方向）。你通常拥有相当大的自主权，因为我们希望作者保留自己的风格。然而，你必须关注、考虑并认真回应每一个提出的关切和问题，即使只是说明你不同意，因此会采取另一条路径。多位AE指出，作者往往不回应AE或审稿人的反馈，不推动修改，不做实质性改变，或者只关注某些次要问题而忽视评审团队指出的真正棘手的问题。无论你如何巧言掩饰，都无法掩盖你理论中的问题。
The opposite issue to this is the “Frankenpaper” problem—the authors try to indeed follow every suggestion and completely lose their own voice and the original idea. Typically, this stems from overly focusing on additions to and results in manuscripts that do not have a clear focus, such that the contribution, instead of getting clearer and stronger, remains obscured. This problem has also been described by our fellow team members as “trying too hard to make the reviewers happy,” “lack of coherence,” and— most pointedly—the paper becoming a “hot mess.” We do appreciate the authors being responsive, but there is such a thing as being too responsive. Another derivative of this problem is “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” This usually results from overly focusing on subtraction. The reviewers will point out areas of the paper that need more work and the authors will sometimes simply cut them out of the manuscript. The problem with this approach is that these areas might be where unique and interesting ideas hide; the paper gets simpler but worse as a result. 与此相反的问题是“Frankenpaper”问题——作者们确实尝试遵循每一条建议，却完全失去了自己的风格和原始想法。通常，这源于过度关注对稿件的补充，导致稿件缺乏明确的重点，使得论文的贡献不仅没有变得更清晰有力，反而变得模糊不清。我们的团队成员也将这个问题描述为“过于努力取悦审稿人”、“缺乏连贯性”，以及——最尖锐的说法——论文变成了“一团糟”。我们确实感谢作者们的响应，但也存在过度响应的情况。这个问题的另一个衍生问题是“把婴儿和洗澡水一起倒掉”。这通常是由于过度关注删减所致。审稿人会指出论文中需要改进的地方，而作者有时会直接将这些部分从稿件中删除。这种方法的问题在于，这些部分可能隐藏着独特且有趣的想法；结果是论文变得更简单，但质量却下降了。
The final major reason for rejection after review is that the authors wrote and submitted what feels like a completely new paper. This occurs from too much pressure to start from zero, and while it can also happen with empirical papers, it is perhaps more frequent with conceptual papers because the authors are not working within any data constraints and the sky is the limit in terms of changes that could be made. This issue is again typically driven by the authors trying to be responsive (which we very much appreciate in general) and straying too far from the original paper’s ideas. The first submission is what led to you getting the R&R and it helps to keep that in mind when working on a revision. If the review team loses sight of the original paper, it is hard to then say that it is getting closer to its final version. Another problem with the new paper approach is that this inevitably creates an entirely new set of concerns. 评审后被拒的最后一个主要原因是作者撰写并提交了一篇感觉像是全新的论文。这种情况的出现是因为作者承受了太多从零开始的压力——虽然实证类论文也可能出现这种情况，但概念类论文可能更常见，因为作者不受任何数据限制，可能进行的修改空间几乎无限。这个问题通常也是作者试图做出回应（我们总体上非常感谢这种态度）但偏离了原始论文核心思想的结果。第一次提交导致你收到了“修改后重审（R&R）”的意见，在进行修改时记住这一点会很有帮助。如果评审团队忽略了原始论文，就很难判断论文是否正在向最终版本靠近。采用“全新论文”的方法还有另一个问题，那就是这不可避免地会产生一整套全新的问题。
Remedies
补救措施
There are a number of cognitive safeguards you can use to minimize the chances of rejection before resubmitting a revision. Remember that at this stage there was something in your paper that the AE was intrigued by and wanted you to develop with the reviewers’ help. The revision stage of writing papers is aided by tacit knowledge, and it helps to have an experienced person on your team to guide this process, even if they are not the lead author. Over time, over some successes and many rejections, you get better as a scholar at reading between the lines, responding to comments and concerns, and making changes in light of the feedback you receive. You realize that the academic review process is also a conversation—it is a conversation between you and the review team. It tends to follow unspoken rules and has a familiar rhythm. It is you—the author(s)— and a team of experts trying to elevate your original idea and help you craft the best possible paper. It is a joint effort and while you will do most of the work, it helps to start with the understanding that you are all on the same team. The number one issue to keep in mind is that you must assure the theoretical contribution is there and comes through in the revision. 在重新提交修订稿之前，你可以使用一些认知保护措施来减少被拒的可能性。请记住，在这个阶段，你的论文中一定有某些内容引起了AE（副编辑）的兴趣，并且希望你在审稿人的帮助下进一步完善。撰写论文的修订阶段需要隐性知识的辅助，拥有一位经验丰富的人（即使不是主要作者）在团队中指导这个过程会很有帮助。随着时间的推移，经过一些成功和多次被拒，你作为学者会在“解读言外之意”、回应评论和关切以及根据收到的反馈做出修改方面变得更加熟练。你会意识到，学术评审过程也是一场对话——是你与评审团队之间的对话。它往往遵循一些不成文的规则，并且有其熟悉的节奏。这是你（作者）和一个专家团队共同努力，试图提升你的原始想法，并帮助你打造出尽可能优秀的论文。这是一项共同的努力，虽然你会承担大部分工作，但从一开始就明白你们是同一个团队的一员会很有帮助。需要牢记的首要问题是，你必须确保理论贡献的存在，并在修订中体现出来。
The tricky part about revisions is that you must also now deal with both the manuscript and the response letter. There are many different tactics you can use to assure that all the concerns of the AE and the reviewers are addressed, such as making summaries, condensed checklists, and Excel spreadsheets. It always helps to have at least two sets of eyes focused on the response letter from the very beginning to ensure that nothing gets missed. This stage of the review process entails reacting to and incorporating the comments, yet this responsiveness exercise is a balancing act. You do not want the reviewers to write the paper for you (the Frankenpaper problem); lead you to cut out the most interesting parts of the manuscript, however underdeveloped (the baby and the bathwater problem); or push you to scrap it entirely (the new paper problem). The key is to keep in mind what your main contribution is going to be and how you are going to craft the paper to ensure it comes through (recall, for example, the reverse outlining technique). 修改工作的棘手之处在于，你现在还必须同时处理手稿和回复信。你可以使用许多不同的策略来确保解决编辑（AE）和审稿人的所有关切，例如制作摘要、精简清单和Excel电子表格。从一开始就让至少两双眼睛关注回复信，这总是有帮助的，以确保没有遗漏任何内容。审稿流程的这一阶段需要对评论做出回应并加以整合，但这种响应性工作是一种平衡的艺术。你不希望审稿人替你写论文（“Frankenpaper问题”）；不希望你删掉手稿中最有趣但可能不够成熟的部分（“弃婴洗澡水问题”）；也不希望你完全放弃论文（“新论文问题”）。关键是要记住你的主要贡献是什么，以及你将如何精心撰写论文以确保它通过（例如，回想一下反向大纲技术）。
As a general remedy to the three groups of reasons behind why papers get rejected at the R&R stage, we recommend you take a step back and—with the help of the AE’s letter—think about what is interesting about your paper and core ideas. If the contribution was not clear (or maybe it wasn’t quite there yet), here you have a second chance to develop one. In the letter, the AE guided you as to what was interesting and novel about your paper—keep in mind that reviewers do not accept or reject papers, and we are not mere vote-counters. We have found that, at this stage, it helps to briefly summarize the core idea of the paper, why it is important and worth discussing, and the main revisions that you will undertake to fully flesh it out. Once that core part crystallizes, you can decide how to polish the edges and support that core novel idea by delineating its boundaries, developing strong arguments, considering counterfactuals (even if they do not make it into the final version of the paper), discussing contingencies, and giving illustrative examples where appropriate. As you write the response letter, think of it as a conversation between you and the review team. Start from the position of mutual respect: ensure that each concern is equally heard, do not be defensive or argumentative, and recognize that we are all trying to help you craft the best possible paper (even if it sometimes feels like tough love). 作为解决论文在“修改重审（R&R）”阶段被拒的三类原因的一般补救措施，我们建议您退后一步——并借助副编辑（AE）的信件——思考您的论文有哪些有趣之处和核心观点。如果论文的贡献不够清晰（或者可能还未完全形成），这里是您进一步完善的第二次机会。在信件中，副编辑会引导您发现论文中有趣和新颖的地方——请记住，审稿人不是在接受或拒绝论文，我们也不是单纯的“投票者”。我们发现，在这个阶段，简要总结论文的核心观点、其重要性和值得讨论的原因，以及您将进行的主要修改以充分充实论文内容，会很有帮助。一旦核心部分清晰，您就可以决定如何润色细节，并通过明确核心新颖观点的边界、构建有力论证、考虑反事实（即使它们不会出现在论文最终版本中）、讨论意外情况以及在适当情况下提供说明性示例来支持这一核心观点。在撰写回复信件时，将其视为您与审稿团队之间的对话。从相互尊重的立场出发：确保每个问题都被平等倾听，不要防御性或争辩性，并且要认识到我们都在努力帮助您打造出尽可能好的论文（即使有时这感觉像是“严厉的爱”）。
CONCLUSION
结论
Writing a conceptual paper is not easy and, as we have outlined, there are many potential pitfalls. At the same time, it can be quite gratifying to develop your conceptual ideas (Bundy et al., 2022). We have joined the AMR AE team because, together with the excellent AMR reviewers, we would like to help authors refine their ideas and make them as sharp and accessible as possible to advance theory and knowledge in management. We are on your side and we really want to publish your paper, but we need you to do your part in thinking carefully how to best articulate and present your ideas. There was a lot of agreement among our editorial team as to the most common reasons for paper rejections, both at the initial stage and after the first revision. We have summarized these main reasons for rejection and things that you can do (and avoid) to make sure that your manuscript is as close to perfect as it can be before (re-)submission. It is our hope that this FTE demystifies some of the review process, motivates you, and encourages you to submit your best work. Even if your paper ultimately does not get published in AMR, it is always our hope that the feedback you receive from us provides you with guidance and insight that improves your manuscript. 撰写概念性论文并非易事，正如我们所概述的，其中存在许多潜在的陷阱。与此同时，发展你的概念性想法（Bundy et al., 2022）会是一件相当令人满足的事情。我们加入AMR AE团队，是因为与优秀的AMR审稿人一起，我们希望帮助作者完善他们的想法，使这些想法尽可能清晰易懂，从而推动管理学领域的理论和知识发展。我们与你站在同一阵线，非常希望你的论文能够发表，但我们需要你尽自己的一份力，仔细思考如何最好地阐述和呈现你的想法。我们的编辑团队就论文被拒的最常见原因达成了广泛共识，这些原因既包括初审阶段，也包括第一次修改之后。我们总结了这些主要的拒稿原因，以及你可以做（和避免做）的事情，以确保你的手稿在（重新）提交前尽可能接近完美。我们希望这篇FTE能揭开审稿过程的一些神秘面纱，激励你，并鼓励你提交自己最出色的作品。即使你的论文最终没有在AMR发表，我们也始终希望你从我们这里获得的反馈能为你提供指导和见解，从而改进你的手稿。
REFERENCES
参考文献
Bundy, J., Shipp, A. J., & Brickson, S. 2022. Demystifying and normalizing the psychological experience of writing for AMR: A qualitative analysis of the highs, lows, and suggested coping strategies. Academy of Management Review, 47: 341357.
Bundy, J., Shipp, A. J., & Brickson, S. 2022. 揭开AMR写作心理体验的神秘面纱并使其规范化：对AMR写作的高低点及建议应对策略的定性分析。《管理学会评论》，47：341357。
Cornelissen, J. 2017. Editor’s comments: Developing propositions, a process model, or a typology? Addressing the challenges of writing theory without a boilerplate. Academy of Management Review, 42: 19.
科内利森，J. 2017. 编辑评论：提出命题、构建过程模型还是建立类型学？解决无模板写作理论的挑战。《管理学会评论》，42（期）：19.
Daft, R. 1985. Why I recommended that your manuscript be rejected and what you can do about it. In L. L. Cummings & P. J. Frost (Eds.). Publishing in the organizational sciences: 164-182. New York, NY: Sage Publications.
达夫特，R. 1985. 为何我建议退稿及你可采取的措施。载于L. L. 卡明斯与P. J. 弗罗斯特（编）。《组织科学出版》：164-182。纽约，纽约州：塞奇出版公司。
Day, N. E. 2011. The silent majority: Manuscript rejection and its impact on scholars. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10: 704718.
Day, N. E. 2011. The silent majority: Manuscript rejection and its impact on scholars. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10: 704718.
Fulmer, I. 2012. Editor’s comments: The craft of writing theory articles—Variety and similarity in AMR. Academy of Management Review, 37: 327331.
Fulmer, I. 2012. 编辑评论：撰写理论文章的技巧——AMR中的多样性与相似性。《管理学会评论》，37：327-331。
Gardner, W. L. 2020. Why I rejected your R&R submission and what you could have done to secure an acceptance. Journal of Management Inquiry, 29: 378384.
加德纳，W. L. 2020. 我为何拒绝你的修改再评审（R&R）投稿以及你本可以如何确保被接受。《管理探究杂志》，29：378-384。
Horn, S. A. 2016. The social and psychological costs of peer review: Stress and coping with manuscript rejection. Journal of Management Inquiry, 25: 1126.
Horn, S. A. 2016. The social and psychological costs of peer review: Stress and coping with manuscript rejection. Journal of Management Inquiry, 25: 1126.
Huff, A. S. 1999. Writing for scholarly publication. New York, NY: Sage.
Huff, A. S. 1999. Writing for scholarly publication. New York, NY: Sage.
Thatcher, S. M., & Fisher, G. 2022. From the editors—The nuts and bolts of writing a theory paper: A practical guide to getting started. Academy of Management Review, 47: 18.
撒切尔，S. M.，& 费希尔，G. 2022. 编者按——撰写理论论文的关键要点：入门实用指南。《管理学会评论》，47：18.
Walker, L. D. 2019. Rejection of a manuscript and career resilience. PS, Political Science & Politics, 52: 4447.
Walker, L. D. 2019. 稿件被拒与职业韧性。《政治科学与政治》（PS），52：4447。
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. 2002. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27: 185203. 扎赫拉，S. A.，& 乔治，G. 2002. 吸收能力：回顾、重新概念化与拓展。《管理学会评论》，27: 185203.
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书面许可，其内容不得复制、发送到多个网站或发布到电子讨论组。但是，用户可以为个人使用打印、下载或通过电子邮件发送文章。