{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02818489289740699, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011273957158962795, 'mean_word_length': 4.936454849498328, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
From Boxing to Dancing: Creating a Developmental Editorial Culture

The editorial process is evolving from a “boxing ring” approach, where reviewing resembles a blood sport, to a more collaborative, developmental approach to reviewing. We now recognize the damaging effects of punitive reviews that stifle ideas and lead to lost voices, and we are beginning to understand that the future of our field depends on our ability to develop our scholarly community (Day, 2011; Graham & Stablein, 1995; Ragins, 2015b). There is a clear call for changing the culture of our peer-review process from a “‘gotcha’ approach that wears authors down to a developmental process that lifts them up” (Ragins, 2016, p. 571). We have made important strides, but more work needs to be done. We call for developmental reviewing, but we lack a consensus on what development actually means. We want our journals to be more developmental, but we lack an understanding of the deep-level changes in the roles, values, and behaviors needed to create a cultural transformation in the editorial review process. The Academy of Management Review (AMR) has undertaken a cultural transformation in the peer-review process. Our goal is to make AMR the gold standard for developmental reviewing and to support the emergence of a developmental editorial culture in our field. This essay shares the lessons we learned and the practices that facilitate developmental reviewing and a developmental editorial culture at AMR. We began this journey a little over 2 years ago, so we are still a work in progress. However, I hope this essay will help readers, reviewers, and editors think differently about what development means and spark conversations about how development can be enacted in the peer-review process.