Abstract
The Resource Review section in the Journal of Management Education (JME) critically appraises a wide range of innovative materials that are of interest and use to management education faculty. Our emphasis is on resources that “management educators might use in their teaching.” This includes, but is not limited to, reviews of trade books, applications (apps), textbooks, wikis, technology (e.g., clickers), webcasts, podcasts, online courses, faculty development experiences, websites, case studies, films, online video resources (e.g., TED Talks), images, games, artifacts, software, and simulations. In short, any teaching resource, in the public domain, that aligns with the purpose of JME.
Submissions should be no longer than 1,500 words and are likely to provide the following:
A description of the resource
A description of how the resource may be used
A fair and constructive analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the resource (perhaps two to three of each)
A comparison with similar resources
Information about where the reader can learn more (e.g., websites)
Authors should avoid descriptions of why such tools (e.g., books, films, wikis) are important, and reviews should focus solely on the resource, not activities surrounding the resource. Finally, objectivity in this section is critical. As a result, the author should not be the person who developed the resource under review. Please do not include any tables or diagrams, and if possible, please avoid using subheadings although we accept that these may be necessary in some cases.
Resource reviews may take different forms and we shall consider all of the following:
Reviews of a single resource (e.g., a computer case or organizational simulation) from a single or multiple perspectives
Critical reviews
Short research notes on the outcomes of adopting a resource
Reviews of multiple resources in a field or on a topic
Reviewers do not have to have used the resource in their own teaching and there is no need to provide evidence that a particular resource is effective. We do not wish to discourage reviews of contemporary resources and want the section to be a vibrant reflection of material that is currently, or about to become, available.
We would recommend that you first approach the editor(s) with detailed proposals rather than completed work to assess whether the review would be of interest. We do not want you duplicating work that we already know is in production, and we want to give you confidence that the resource you are reviewing will achieve publication. All reviews, solicited and unsolicited, will be subject to developmental review by a section associate editor, who may call upon subject experts to guide his or her decision-making.
All submissions should follow “Manuscript Submission” guidelines for JME, which can be found on our website (http://www.uk.sagepub.com/journalsProdDesc.nav?ct_p=announcements&prodId=Journal200931&crossRegion=antiPod#tabview=manuscriptSubmission). Once written, please submit all reviews through our manuscript submission portal at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jome choosing “Resource Reviews” from the drop-down menu for submission type.
In this first offering of resource reviews you will find examples of different types of review that represent the wide range of resources that we wish to review. You will probably notice that Jon Billsberry, the journal’s editor, wrote one of the reviews. To avoid any sense of impropriety, four experienced editorial board members or associate editors independently reviewed the submission without knowing the name of the author. These reviews were conducted outside of the manuscript central system so that anonymity was preserved. It was only accepted for publication once the reviewers were satisfied with the review. The editor and I developmentally reviewed the other three reviews.
I hope you find these reviews interesting and they give food for thought for your own teaching. More than this, I hope they enthuse you about writing your own review and that you decide to submit it to us.