• Home
  • Login
  • Welcome to the Staff Intranet


A Journal of Management Studies Associate Editor has the following advice for authors going through reviewers’ comments:
  • Reviewers are usually tougher than editors
  • They may be less experienced than the editor
  • They don’t have the need to publish papers
  • They are giving their free time to review your paper
  • Good reviewers put a lot of effort and produce helpful comments – they add value to your work
  • Use the reviews constructively to further develop your work
  • If you disagree with a suggestion, make a case 
When reviewing a paper, consider the foloowing:

Thinking Like an Editor
The following is advice taken from Thinking like your editor. How to write great serious nonfiction – and get it published (2002) by Susan Rabiner and Alfred Fortunato. The authors are not academics, but rather literary agents who provide tips for all who want to produce a well-researched, yet approachable, accessible and popular piece of work. Here are some of the characteristics of good authors.
  • Demonstrates real command of their material
An author that is not cautious when it comes to making observations and drawing inferences rather than a writer who is tentative, or  someone who produces polemic, bombast or un-evidenced generalisations.
  • Knows their target audience

A researcher that respects their readers’ intelligence and aims to avoid causing discomfort by utilising a condescending tone.

  • Communicates their “passion for the topic” and their “passion to leave a mark on it”

Rabiner and Fortunato suggest that popular works have “a strong authorial voice". While they realise a paper must deal fairly with its subject matter, taking into account all relevant information and points of view, the author must have “something to say and the compulsion to say it''.

Research Repository (all published research must be uploaded here within 3 months of publication)