Friends: After a 10-year hiatus, I've renewed my membership in AOM and PNP. I'm looking forward to getting involved again with the activities of the section! I'm writing to you now as the new (effective January 1) Editor of the journal Nonprofit Management & Leadership (NML). NML should be on the radar screen of all AOM members with an interest in management (including leadership and governance) of nonprofit organizations, but I fear that the journal has never risen to the level of attention for too much of the PNP. NML has always had a mission of speaking directly to and giving a voice to practitioners. This has great value, but I believe that over-focus on this part of its mission has kept NML amid the second tier of the nonprofit-specific journals. The focus is changing under my editorship, and I'll post more about my vision for the journal in coming days and weeks. In short, NML will be focusing more on the needs of its academic authors, and my goal is to raise both the impact factor and the overall profile of the journal by publishing the best research in nonprofit management. Part of my reason for re-joining AOM and PNP is to be in a position to solicit the best work of the field for publication in Nonprofit Management & Leadership.
I have put 20 manuscripts under peer review over the past four weeks, and I've had the great pleasure of soliciting manuscript reviews from people across the field. Matching manuscript topics with appropriate reviewers is vital, so I am developing and honing my list of article referees. So, as part of that effort, I am putting out this open call for referees. Peer reviews are double-blinded: reviewers are not told whose work they are reviewing, and authors are not told who has reviewed their work. Good reviews run to several pages of detailed criticism and encouragement.
Why review?
(1) Although it is something of a thankless task, some say that peer review is a basic obligation of academic life. Without peer reviewers, we have no peer review. Without high quality criticism, we cannot publish the highest quality work. Peer reviewers are the backbone of our system.
(2) Better criticism leads to better products, which raises the profile and quality of NML, which gives us all another good outlet for our academic work. Your review ultimately means better outlets for you.
(3) You get to really dig your teeth into new, cutting edge work and interact with it and its authors in a way far beyond simply reading an article. It's fun AND educational!
(4) You get to be really helpful to your colleagues, which is especially valuable to people who are up-and-coming in the field.
(5) You get to be openly critical of research details. The bloodier the better. How often do you get to say what you really think?
(6) Service to your field might be part of your employer's expectations, so peer review for NML looks good on your vita.
(7) I'd really appreciate it.
If you are interested in reviewing and want to make sure you're on my list of potential referees, please email me your name and a few comments about your subject interests. I don't anticipate that I'd call on you more than once (maybe twice, maybe) per year.
Thanks!
Mark
____________________________________________________________
Mark A. Hager, Ph.D.
Editor, Nonprofit Management & Leadership
Associate Professor, School of Community Resources & Development
Arizona State University
http://www.mhager.net/
411 N. Central Avenue, Suite 550
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-0690 USA