McIntire faculty are often in one of many stages preparing their research for academic journals. Ideation to publication is a lengthy process that takes years, which is understandable, given the many factors involved. One key reason for this prolonged timeframe is that research is thoroughly reviewed by peers and journal editors alike.
According to Commerce Professor Gary Ballinger, McIntire faculty serve as peer reviewers, sitting on boards for multiple journals, a role that is beneficial to their understanding of the subject, giving them access to cutting-edge research in the areas they teach and allowing them to share those perspectives with colleagues and students.
Some Comm School professors are fulfilling important duties with scholarly journals as associate editors, an editor-in-chief (EIC), or in Ballinger’s case, as one of two at the Academy of Management Annals, a role he’ll take on through 2027. The 20-year-old journal specializes in integrative review articles, works by authors who have read bodies of academic research and describe the state of the field and how they envision it developing in the future.
Ballinger, who previously served as an associate editor with the journal, points out that there is “a rich tradition of editorial board membership” among faculty in the Management Area at McIntire who have held similar roles; for example, Professor Adelaide King was an associate editor at the Academy of Management Review, and Professor Amanda Cowen was with the Academy of Management Journal.
With his appointment, Ballinger joins an elite group that has included Marketing Professor David Mick at the Journal of Consumer Research (1997-2003) and Professor Dorothy Leidner at the Journal of the Association for Information Systems (2019-2024). Leidner succeeded Professor Suprateek Sarker, who served in the role from 2013 to 2019; Sarker is now EIC for Information Systems Research, a position he’s held since 2022.
New Responsibilities
For Ballinger, the difference in terms of core responsibilities in moving from an associate editor to co-EIC involves screening a greater number of manuscripts when work is submitted and doing more strategic thinking about how the journal is differentiated from other sources in the field.
“That’s our responsibility to then distribute the manuscript to associate or senior editors who evaluate the work and then send it out either for peer review or serve as peer reviewers,” he explains. “Then the associate editor is charged with working one-on-one with the author throughout that process. If the paper is not accepted, then the associate editor has to develop the correspondence. But if it continues in the process, the associate editor works as a representative of the reader of the journal and serves to shape the manuscript without inserting their voice into it to get it through to the publication process.”
As one of two EICs, it’s his purview to, in addition to providing the essential screening function of the journal, “have a broader voice of what’s published, how it’s published, how our authors are treated and celebrated.” He’s also responsible for evaluating correspondence between associate editors and the authors. The position exposes him to even more research.
So, in his experience, what criteria help determine which papers are accepted or rejected?
“It’s hard to say, but novelty and interestingness are really important,” Ballinger shares. “And it’s not just that a field has been reviewed or is particularly interesting, but is it a part of the field where we think a fresh approach or perspective might be required? We want to be able to put an author in a position to say something clear, not just controversial for the sake of being controversial, but to be somewhat provocative about where a field is going. There are all sorts of different ways of looking at these types of questions, and somebody who has a point of view will tend to be more successful than someone who simply wants to describe the field.”
He adds that in the case of the Academy of Management Annals, they prefer a broader approach to reviews in which authors look for literature from as wide a set of outlets as possible. “We think that distinguishes our reviews from others where authors may look at a very select number of journals to review the research. We really want people to go to as many outlets as they can to find good work, because we know what’s out there,” Ballinger says.
Prestige and Classroom Impact
Another question concerns prestige and what makes a journal well-respected—and does it matter?
Ballinger believes that esteem for a journal is the result of cause and effect.
“What draws prestige to a journal—especially to a journal that publishes review articles—is that we publish work that summarizes a field and says where it’s going. If you’re a doctoral student who’s conducting research in the field, the first place to go, as opposed to looking at 30 pieces of primary research, is to look at a review that organizes the field,” he says, pointing out the cause. “Part of the status of the journal is that its work is applied in research done by other researchers and cited by them.”
In the most general sense, the effect of that is a greater citation count. But Ballinger notes that academics often discuss prestige. “Do people cite reviews in a highly rated journal just because the journal is highly rated? It can sort of feed into itself and be a self-fulfilling prophecy: People will read a journal like Annals and decide to use the research we publish because they know it’s good. And they know it’s good because it’s in Annals or another major journal that has high prestige,” he says, adding that maintaining that standard puts a great deal of pressure on editors.
“In the case of this journal, it’s a [relative] newcomer at 20 years old, but it’s certainly built up that reputation, and we have to work hard to maintain it,” says Ballinger.
His editorial work has informed his teaching, with manuscripts and information from articles about storytelling, conflict resolution, and team management relevant to the courses he teaches.
“Several of the reviews I’ve done have really helped organize the material I teach. Now we use texts and the like for topics like decision-making and negotiation but seeing that material organized and communicated in a unique way and also being able to get a sense of the state of the field have been particularly important,” Ballinger explains. “That’s something I’ve enjoyed doing throughout my career—ever since I started reviewing manuscripts and doing peer reviews, I’ve learned tons of new stuff. I teach a lot about teams and teamwork, and I’ve been fortunate over the years to get sent many manuscripts on the subject. It’s a very easy way to continue to learn what the state of the field is and to learn some new perspectives that you can then, in turn, teach to students.”
