《英文文章回复审稿意见信》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《英文文章回复审稿意见信（8页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、AMR090402.R2 Comments to editors and reviewers I have now received and considered the reviews of your revised manuscript submitted to Academy of Management Review “HUMAN RESOURCE SYSTEMS AND HELPING IN ORGANIZATIONS: A RELATIONAL PERSPECTIVE” (Manuscript AMR090402.R1). All three of your reviewers ag
2、ree that your manuscript has made good progress and youve made a good effort to respond to their earlier concerns. We all appreciate the clearer focus on the linkages between HR systems and helping and recognize the time and energies you put into this revision. Your reviewers also agree that at this
3、 stage, several issues remain. I share the opinion that your revised manuscript is much improved and that you undertook great effort to be responsive to the earlier feedback. And, while I agree there are still some issues to address, I believe these issues can be addressed with relatively moderate a
4、dditional effort and thus, I am pleased to conditionally accept your manuscript for publication in AMR subject to the changes below. Congratulations! I will not be returning your revised manuscript to the reviewers, but instead will be ensuring the remaining changes are made on their behalf. In term
5、s of the remaining changes Id like you to make, it is important that you consider all the comments made by the reviewers but I would like to highlight the primary factors that I believe are necessary to move forward. I would like you to focus your energies on the points I note below. Dear Professor
6、Lepak: Thank you for the positive feedback and conditionally accepting our paper. In this round of revision, we focused our efforts strongly on the points made in your letter. Below, we grouped actions taken in response to your comments, organized under the major headings supplied. As before, we att
7、empted to be succinct while fully explaining our actions. Although we replied directly to you and focused our explanations on points raised in your letter, we took seriously and addressed in some way each of the reviewer comments. Given your request for an August 1 deadline and your patience waiting
8、 for our first revision, we wanted to make every effort to return this revision as promptly as possible. Since your email inquiring about our returning the revision early, my colleagues and my schedules aligned such that we were able to make this revision our top priority. We have devoted most of ou
9、r working (and nonworking) days to the revision. As a result, we are able to return the paper earlier than we estimated. Your and the reviewers comments have again stimulated changes we feel further improved the paper. Should you find the paper requires further clarification or revision, we most cer
10、tainly stand ready to do so. Best regards, Kevin Mossholder Propositions. One of the more significant concerns that remain for the reviewers and myself relates to the propositions in your manuscript. For example, reviewer 1 (Comment 2) writes, “The way in which all the propositions are currently sta
11、ted is clumsy, convoluted, and would benefit from simplification. In each case you might remove the intermediary climate information, as this is contained in the preceding paragraphs. Please see the following examples: P1a: In a compliance HR system, helping behavior is motivated by selfinterest and
12、 instrumentality. (remove the “will lead to a market pricing climate in which”) P2a: In a collaboration HR system, helping behavior is motivated by inkind reciprocity and maintained by balanced exchanges (remove “will lead to an equality matching climate”) P1e is incomplete. Constrained by what or t
13、o what?” Reviewer 3 (Comments 46) raises similar concerns and writes, “The very first proposition regarding helping indicates that helping will be “constrained.” This is not testable as stated. Constrained relative to what? All of the propositions regarding risk were worded in a way that I believe r
14、enders them impossible to test (1c, 2c, and 3c). I understand risk to be one of the dimensions of relational climate, so you cannot simply delete these propositions. Perhaps they could be reworded to indicate that perceived risk will be greater for X than for Y?. The causal model of hr systems relat
15、ional climates helping is never presented, and the abstract even hints that you are not proposing mediation. I would think that at least partial mediation is expected here, and that logic should permeate the manuscript (abstract, introduction to big picture model, propositions, and perhaps even a fi
16、gure). Is there a reason that you are shying away from proposing mediation?” Im not exactly certain as to what the best course of action is and I do not want to impose specific wording on how you structure your propositions. Having said that, I think it is imperative that you do address these concerns regarding the structure of your propositions. I believe this is doable with some effort to get to the essence
