|
有朋友要求附上评审意见，这里我仅附上编辑的信，由于论文还未发表，评审意见暂不公开。
欢迎大家提出自己看法和意见，同时也供大家学习参考。
称呼均已省略。。。
How and When Does Ownership Promote Product Innovation…
I would like to thank you for submitting your paper to the Journal of Management Studies for publication consideration. Your paper was assigned to me as action editor and was sent to three scholars highly familiar with the domain in which your research question is embedded and could provide appropriate developmental feedback. I also read your manuscript independently, approaching it as an action editor of JMS rather than an authority on this particular topic.
The opinions of the reviewers on the quality and potential of the manuscript were very similar. Although all reviewers acknowledge that the research topic and setting are interesting, they all raise substantial concerns regarding the theoretical and methodological contribution of this paper. I have to say that I agree with the reviewers in their critical assessment of this paper. In addition, I am of the opinion that the scope of work needed to remedy these issues is rather extensive. In fact, I believe that these issues are unlikely to be resolved within the current framework of your study’s theoretical and methodological models. As a result, I am very sorry to inform you that we will not be able to publish your paper in JMS, nor are we willing to request that you revise and resubmit the manuscript to us.
You have clearly dedicated considerable time and energy in designing and crafting the study. Hence, I hope our decision will not discourage you from advancing this stream of research. Rather, I encourage you to consider the reviewers’ comments and suggestions as valuable feedback that might assist in further refinement of your study.
In the remainder of this letter, please allow me to highlight the most critical concerns that played a more major role in my decision. Since the reviewers are very clear in their comments, I do not repeat all of their individual points, but instead focus on some recurring themes that came through in multiple reviewers’ comments and in my own reading of the paper.
Novelty of the paper
In the paper, you acknowledge that you are not the first one to study the relationship between ownership structures and innovation performance and you do a good job in citing relevant prior studies. At the same time, however, it remains unclear how your paper fundamentally contributes to our theoretical understanding of these relationships. In the paper, you argue that this study contributes to integrating agency theory and product life cycle theory. For me it remained unclear what you actually mean by ‘integrating’ (in my opinion, considering moderation effects does not automatically lead to the integration of two theories). Also the reviewers had difficulties in identifying the added value of this paper both in theoretical and methodological terms. Before submitting the paper to another journal, I think it would be valuable to try to describe more clearly (i) how your research explicitly deviates from prior studies and (ii) how you fundamentally contribute to our theoretical understanding of the relationship between ownership structures and innovation performance. Reviewer 2 has provided an extensive list of references that might help you accomplishing this endeavor.
Proposed relationships and argumentation.
Reviewers 1 and 3 raised several critical concerns regarding the development of your hypotheses. In particular, they emphasize that the hypotheses are stated too broadly. Both reviewers therefore encourage you to be much more specific on making a much more explicit distinction between different ownership structures in the hypotheses.
Lay-out, length and writing style of the paper
The reviewers also raise several concerns regarding the length and style of the paper. At first sight, these issues might seem to be quite minor details that are easy to solve. This, however, raises the question of why you did not solve these issues before submitting the paper. Reviewer 1, for instance, was clearly annoyed by the strange typeface of the paper and the language issues within your paper. I understand that there is a lot pressure to submit papers, which might reduce attention to some lay-out and language issues. However, such issues might substantially influence the ‘mood’ of the reviewer and substantially reduce the probability that reviewers are willing to see the potential of your paper. I therefore would strongly encourage you to spend much more time on journal guidelines and language checking before submitting to a journal.
In closing, I am sorry our decision was not a more favorable one. Nevertheless, on behalf of the entire editorial team of the Journal of Management Studies, allow me to extend to you our best wishes as you continue working with this particular paper and other research projects. We greatly appreciate your interest in the JMS and thank you for the opportunity to review your scholarship.
Good luck with further developments of your inquiry.
| 
加好友,备注ddjd
京公网安备 11010802022788号
论坛法律顾问：王进律师
知识产权保护声明
免责及隐私声明
发帖
雷达卡
