Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,520

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Qualitative Research and the Academy of Management Journal

Gephart, Robert P.·2004·Academy of Management Journal
DOI 10.5465/amj.2004.14438580
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Robert Gephart from the University of Alberta reflects on his observations as a long-serving, award-winning reviewer of qualitative research for this journal. Despite many successes, most qualitative papers do not succeed in being accepted. This situation is not surprising for a journal with a 10% acceptance rate. However, it seems that there are certain recurrent issues in qualitative submissions that, if addressed, could improve the prospects for positive revise and resubmit decisions and ultimate acceptance at this journal. Qualitative research required qualitative methods by definition. It is important to show what was done in the research process and to articulate how research practices transformed observations into data, results, findings, and insights. The methodology used need not be complex, and the methodological account need not dominate the written report. The author also outlines common problems and challenges found in many qualitative submission to this journal and potential solutions to these problems.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5465/amj.2004.14438580

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Gephart, R. P.
Venue
Academy of Management Journal
Publisher
Academy of Management
Published
2004-08
Volume
47
Issue
4
Pages
454-462
ISSN
  • 0001-4273 (ISSN-L)
  • 1948-0989
DOI
10.5465/amj.2004.14438580
OpenAlex
W2008913319
Cited by
1,520
References
3
FWCI
80.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.