Vassilis M. Papdakis (Athens University of Economics and Business) wrote
a paper entitled 'The role of broader context and the communication program
in Merger and Acquisition implementation success'. As with the previous
example, the reviewers gave fairly detailed comments suggesting some modest
revisions. The author provided two cover sheets, one for each reviewer,
quoting their comments, responding to the comment, and stating what action
taken. The reviewers gave fairly detailed comments, a selection of which
are shown below in summary form, along with authors' responses.
|Practical applications - are the implications
for practitioners clearly drawn out?
Somewhat weak... The implications are primarily
for research purposes.
'Looking back at the paper more objectively,
we have to admit your are right.' Rewrote implications section adding
new implications for managers and elaborating on already presented
Very limited advice for improving practice
|Research applications - does the article suggest
areas for further research?
Yes, and this is strong
Further research needs to be stated in terms more relevant to
Section re-written as has discussion and
|Clarity and readability - is attention paid to clarity
of expression and readability?
Yes, however identify M&A acronym at the beginning of the
Major problem. Grammatical and typo errors.
Proof read again and errors corrected.
|Originality - does it add to the subject area/body
Only peripheral contribution
Respectfully disagree, giving four reasons.
ACTION: rewrite 2nd part of intro so that these points are better
Analytical rigour - does the article demonstrate
soundness in the way in which it has been research and/or argued?
Researchers did not establish validity and reliability
of their measures. Needs to be a quantitative analysis of the data
to determine its validity and reliability.
Fair point: have attempted to use well known
and tested measures of main variables, to ensure reliablity and
validity of variables in the research. ACTION: establish validity
a) by indicating source of variables b) by discussing how other
studies used as ref points; also explain in more detail reliability
of all composite measures in the study.
Discuss literature before stating hypothesis; devt. of measure
of independent variables not well explained; include some controls
in the regression analysis; methodology weak.
'We believe, there is no such thing as a
perfect research design. However, we are confident that we have
exercised every caution to present a reliable, and well researched
study...by...following and ...improving the research designs...of
other researchers. ACTION: added several papers to the theoretical
section; rewritten several paras; have not included addit.
control variables as the M&As studied come from 10 different
|Internationality - will the article be of interest
to an international audience?
Need for discussion of implications beyond Greece.
Additional info on M&A activity in Greece
given plus further discussion on usefulness to international audience,
plus prospective EU members
Little discussion of Greece in terms of explaining the research
|Please specify any other revision criteria
- enriched section discussing further research
- added new relevant papers to theoretical
- rewrote introduction and several other
Note that although the second reviewer recommended rejection, the author
did in fact revise it.