of the writing, which may be fixable, and the quality of the
ideas that the writing conveys.
PMI recognizes that authors have spent a great deal of time
and effort on every submission. Reviewers will always treat an
author’s work with respect, even when the reviewer disagrees
or finds fault with what has been written.
Submissions are subjected to a double-blind review, whereby
the identity of the reviewer and the author are not disclosed.
In the event that a reviewer is unable to be objective about
a specific paper, another reviewer will be selected for that
paper. Reviewers will not discuss any manuscript with anyone (other than the Project Management Journal® Editor) at
Pointers on the Substance of the Review Theory
• Does the paper have a well-articulated theory that provides
conceptual insight and guides hypotheses formulation?
• Does the study inform or improve our understanding of that
• Are the concepts clearly defined?
• Does the paper cite appropriate literature and provide proper
credit to existing work on the topic? Has the author offered
critical references? Does the paper contain an appropriate
number of references?
• Do the sample, measures, methods, observations, procedures,
and statistical analyses ensure internal and external validity?
Are the statistical procedures used correctly and appropriately? Are the author’s major assumptions reasonable?
• Does the empirical study provide a good test of the theory
and hypotheses? Is the method chosen appropriate for the
research question and theory?
• Does the paper make a new and meaningful contribution
to the management literature in terms of theory, empirical
knowledge, and management practice?
• Has the author given proper citation to the original source of
all information given in the work or in others’ work that was
Adherence to the Spirit of the Guidelines
Papers that severely violate the spirit of the guidelines (e.g.,
papers that are single-spaced, papers that use footnotes
rather than conventional referencing formats, papers that
greatly exceed 40 pages), or which do not clearly fit the mission of the Journal will be returned to authors without being
described in the letter to the Editor. The editorial team makes
software-supported checks for identifying plagiarism and
Accepted manuscripts become the property of PMI, which
holds the copyright for materials that it publishes. Material published in Project Management Journal® may not be
reprinted or published elsewhere, in whole or part, without
the written permission of PMI.
Accepted manuscripts may be subject to editorial changes
made by the Editor. The author is solely responsible for all
statements made in his or her work, including changes made
by the editor. Submitted manuscripts are not returned to the
author; however, reviewer comments will be furnished.
The reputation of Project Management Journal® and contribution to the field depend upon our attracting and publishing
the best research. Project Management Journal® competes
for the best available manuscripts by having the largest and
widest readership among all project management journals.
Equally important, we also compete by offering high-quality
feedback. The timeliness and quality of our review process
reflect well upon all who participate in it.
It is important that authors learn from the reviews and feel
that they have benefited from the Project Management Jour-
nal® review process. Therefore, reviewers will strive to:
• Be Specific. Reviewers point out the positives about the paper,
possible problems, and how any problems can be addressed.
Specific comments, reactions, and suggestions are required.
• Be Constructive. In the event that problems cannot be fixed
in the current study, suggestions are made to authors on how
to improve the paper on their next attempt. Reviewers document as to whether the issue is with the underlying research,
the research conclusions, or the way the information is being
communicated in the submission.
• Identify Strengths. One of the most important tasks for a
reviewer is to identify the portions of the paper that can be
improved in a revision. Reviewers strive to help an author
shape a mediocre manuscript into an insightful contribution.
• Consider the Contribution of the Manuscript. Technical correctness and theoretical coherence are obvious issues for a
review, but the overall contribution that the paper offers is
also considered. Papers will not be accepted if the contribution it offers is not meaningful or interesting. Reviewers will
address uncertainties in the paper by checking facts; therefore, review comments will be as accurate as possible.
• Consider Submissions from Authors Whose Native Language
Is Not English. Reviewers will distinguish between the quality