The Emergence of Implicit Criteria Actually Used by Reviewers of Qualitative Research Articles

Henri Savall (), Veronique Zardet (), Marc Bonnet () and Michel Peron
Additional contact information
Henri Savall: MAGELLAN - Laboratoire de Recherche Magellan - UJML - Université Jean Moulin - Lyon 3 - Université de Lyon - Institut d'Administration des Entreprises (IAE) - Lyon, ISEOR - Institut de Socio-économie des Entreprises et des ORganisations - Institut de socio-économie des entreprises et des organisations
Veronique Zardet: ISEOR - Institut de Socio-économie des Entreprises et des ORganisations - Institut de socio-économie des entreprises et des organisations
Marc Bonnet: ISEOR - Institut de Socio-économie des Entreprises et des ORganisations - Institut de socio-économie des entreprises et des organisations
Michel Peron: ISEOR - Institut de Socio-économie des Entreprises et des ORganisations - Institut de socio-économie des entreprises et des organisations

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: This article brings to light the actual evaluation practices of reviewers when assessing qualitative manuscripts. The authors conducted the first empirical research entirely based on reviewer reports for a journal on management sciences over a 28-year period. Content analysis of 474 reviewer reports written by 56 reviewers identified 19 critical points and 10 criteria, making up a synthetic table of 190 possible cells, 51 of which proved to be actually used by reviewers. These findings are then compared with the quality criteria identified in the extant U.S. literature. Comparison reveals some shared quality criteria but also throws new light on a number of discrepancies. Analysis over time shows marked evolution from emphasis on internal validity criteria over the first 10 years toward emphasis on external validity criteria in the past 10 years. Factors ensuring reliability and replicability of the results of this research are discussed at length.

Keywords: academic review process; implicit criteria; method; qualitative content analysis; replicability; validity (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2007-08-08
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in Organizational Research Methods, 2007, 11 (3), pp.510-540. ⟨10.1177/1094428107308855⟩

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-04660942

DOI: 10.1177/1094428107308855

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().