Dear SAP Community,
It's that time of the year when conference submissions are being prepared, and when one is asked to review these submissions. Indeed, AOM's call for reviewers provides "good" general reasons for being a reviewer:
- First-time attendees: "Reviewing can be your first step in getting involved with AOM. […]"
- Academics: "Help ensure the academic quality and integrity of the Annual Meeting program. Engage in your scholarly community […]."
- Students: "Get an introduction to the scholarly process and an opportunity to explore and improve your research […]."
- Practitioners: "[H]elp contextualize research to better serve practicing managers and forecast their needs."
Treviño (2008, AMR) framed reviewing as "professional responsibility", and Lindebaum and Jordan (2023, Organization) consider reviewing a "quid pro quo commitment" to be made in response to one's submissions, ones that have to be reviewed by others as well. In addition, reviewing is an identity-producing activity: Without reviews that contribute to knowledge progress through feedback on others' work, and that secure research standards and norms, it would be hard for us as a scholarly community to claim that we produce "academic" knowledge.
Therefore, unless already done so, I kindly ask you to sign up to review for SAP: review.aom.org
SAP hopefully feels like an "intellectual home" to you, and indeed, this "intellectual home" is built on the foundation of solid reviews by experts in the field. Therefore, we need you!
Thank you so much in advance for your support.
All the best,
Matthias Wenzel
SAP Program Chair
------------------------------
Matthias Wenzel
Professor
Leuphana University of Lüneburg
Lüneburg
------------------------------