The case for good reviewing

After some years of remarkable growth, the scholarly field of Project Management (PM) research currently finds itself in a crucial stage of development. In this editorial, we make an analysis of submissions to PM's premier specialty journal, the International Journal of Project Management over the period 2007–2010, and argue that one of the most important ways in which PM research can further evolve is to pay more attention to the mundane, yet important, act of good reviewing — an activity that we believe has received relatively little attention in the PM community thus far. Let us begin by considering the crucial juncture that, as a scholarly discipline, PM is currently at. On the one hand, the PM research field is characterized by signs of major progress. For one, there has been a strong growth in terms of published output: recent years have seen the publication of three major edited volumes with a central focus on PM, published by top-tier publishers (Cattani et al., 2011, Kenis et al., 2009 and Morris et al., 2011); the PM/temporary organizations literature published in ISI ranked peer-reviewed articles is growing exponentially (Bakker, 2010); and besides some of the long-standing PM specialty journals, the field has recently seen the rise of a number of new journals, including the International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, the International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, and the Journal of Project, Program, and Portfolio Management.