“多重障碍”复习的问题

IF 9.3 1区管理学 Q1 BUSINESS

Journal of Management Pub Date : 2025-04-17 DOI:10.1177/01492063251333788

José M. Cortina

{"title":"“多重障碍”复习的问题","authors":"José M. Cortina","doi":"10.1177/01492063251333788","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Waiting to evaluate one section of a paper (e.g., the Methods) until you have decided whether another section (e.g., the front end) passes muster is analogous to “multiple hurdle” systems in personnel selection. This usually creates a suboptimal weighting scheme in which the part of the system that represents the first hurdle is overvalued. I explain why “multiple hurdle” reviewing is counterproductive and offer a superior alternative.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Problem With “Multiple Hurdle” Reviewing\",\"authors\":\"José M. Cortina\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01492063251333788\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Waiting to evaluate one section of a paper (e.g., the Methods) until you have decided whether another section (e.g., the front end) passes muster is analogous to “multiple hurdle” systems in personnel selection. This usually creates a suboptimal weighting scheme in which the part of the system that represents the first hurdle is overvalued. I explain why “multiple hurdle” reviewing is counterproductive and offer a superior alternative.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54212,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Management\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251333788\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251333788","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

等待评估论文的一个部分（例如，方法），直到你确定另一个部分（例如，前端）是否合格，这类似于人事选择中的“多障碍”系统。这通常会产生一个次优的权重方案，即系统中代表第一个障碍的部分被高估了。我解释了为什么“多障碍”审查是适得其反的，并提供了一个更好的选择。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

The Problem With “Multiple Hurdle” Reviewing

Waiting to evaluate one section of a paper (e.g., the Methods) until you have decided whether another section (e.g., the front end) passes muster is analogous to “multiple hurdle” systems in personnel selection. This usually creates a suboptimal weighting scheme in which the part of the system that represents the first hurdle is overvalued. I explain why “multiple hurdle” reviewing is counterproductive and offer a superior alternative.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Management Multiple-

CiteScore

22.40

自引率

5.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Management (JOM) aims to publish rigorous empirical and theoretical research articles that significantly contribute to the field of management. It is particularly interested in papers that have a strong impact on the overall management discipline. JOM also encourages the submission of novel ideas and fresh perspectives on existing research. The journal covers a wide range of areas, including business strategy and policy, organizational behavior, human resource management, organizational theory, entrepreneurship, and research methods. It provides a platform for scholars to present their work on these topics and fosters intellectual discussion and exchange in these areas.