What makes for a good review article in organizational psychology?

Organizational Psychology Review’s mission is to advance research and practice in organizational psychology by stimulating the development of high-quality theory. In pursuit of this mission, OPR publishes conceptual contributions, meta-analyses, and integrative reviews of the literature capturing the state of the science. In an earlier editorial, Stephen Humphrey reflected on the question of what makes for a good meta-analysis (Humphrey, 2011). OPR has also launched a Special Forum on Good Theory to stimulate discussion of and reflection on the question of what is good theory in organizational psychology (van Knippenberg, 2011, 2012). Ferris, Buckley, and Hochwarter (2012) and Wiesenfeld and Brockner (2012) were the first contributions to the Forum, and the current issue adds Shalley (2012) as a third contribution, with more to come in the following issues of OPR. As we announced earlier, OPR issued a continuing Call for Review Proposals. The rationale for this call is to lower the threshold for taking on the task of writing a review of the literature by limiting the initial investment to the submission of a proposal rather than a fullblown review article. In doing so, we hope to alleviate author worries that their review might be seen as not moving enough beyond a summary of the state of the science (i.e., and therefore not providing enough of a value-added contribution). The bottom line is that we want to see more integrative reviews of the literature, because these can make important contributions to the field. Urging authors to submit review proposals (or review papers – the proposal stage is by no means a prerequisite; it aims to be a ‘‘service’’ to authors only) while at the same time recognizing the risk that reviews are seen to provide a limited value-added contribution, we beg the question of what would make for a good review of the literature. What do we want to see in review papers to conclude that they provide sufficient value-added? I know better than to claim that this editorial can comprehensively answer the question of what would make for a good review of the literature, but its intention is to