Re:
Incompetent editing and reviewing concerning models and theories
I review for too many journals due to the fact that I’m occasionally rewarded
with a new idea that I would not see until one or two years later when the article
is published (thanks to publishers who provide pre-publication access). I am at
the moment assessing a manuscript that lists excruciatingly long definitions of
Hofstede’s 5D model of culture, citing Hofstede (1980) and (1994). First,
citing the labels and sources is sufficient, don’t waste the paper, ink,
bandwidth, and disk space; if we haven’t read these before we shouldn’t be
teaching and researching international business and management. Second,
Hofstede, Hofstede & Minkov (2010) present a 6-dimensional model that
supersedes the 5D model, and www.geerthofstede.eu
presents an interim 7-dimensional model that is interesting (to be officially
replaced by the 6D model).
Unless you’re working for a business history publication, if you’re a journal
or book editor and see Hofstede (1980) and (1994) presented as a basis in the literature
review, desk reject the manuscript. Respect your reviewers’ time. If you as a
reviewer receive a manuscript with these references as a basis, return it
immediately. If you're a supervisor of a dissertation or thesis and allow their use, shame on you.
2013 conference: http://leadershipinrussia.homestead.com/
Romie Frederick Littrell, PhD, FIAIR
Associate Professor of International Business
Editor, AIB Insights; International Management
Area Editor, International Journal of Emerging Markets
AUT Business School
Tel. extension 5805, Mail stop B-31
