No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Lack of expertise means it is not a peer review
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 May 2020
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Commentaries
- Information
- Copyright
- © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. 2020
References
Birkinshaw, J., Healey, M. P., Suddaby, R., & Weber, K. (2014). Debating the future of management research. Journal of Management Studies, 51, 38–55.10.1111/joms.12061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, G. F. (2010). Do theories of organizations progress? Organizational Research Methods, 13, 690–709.10.1177/1094428110376995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY:
Plenum Press.10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, G., & Aguinis, H. (2017). Using theory elaboration to make theoretical advancements. Organizational Research Methods, 20, 438–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köhler, T., González-Morales, M. G., Banks, G. C., O’Boyle, E. H., Allen, J. A., Sinha, R., … Gulick, L. M. V. (2020). Supporting robust, rigorous, and reliable reviewing as the cornerstone of our profession: Introducing a competency framework for peer review. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 13(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18, 599–620.10.5465/amr.1993.9402210152CrossRefGoogle Scholar