Hi everyone-

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to our upcoming RSO volume, Algorithmic Organizing. […]

[I]n the spirit of exploration, in the editorial chapter of the volume we would like to experiment and explore the potential benefits and challenges of AI in the editorial process. We want to be transparent and share that we are planning to use Generative AI tools to assist in synthesizing the peer reviews and crafting editorial feedback. Specifically, we will be using [generative AI program] to help identify common themes, strengths, and areas for improvement across the reviews. [Generative AI program] ensures that the data from our interactions will not be used for training the model. We will then carefully review the AI-generated synthesis to ensure accuracy and appropriateness before sharing the feedback with you […].

We want to emphasize that the AI tool will not replace human editorial judgment, in line with Emerald Publishing’s stance on AI tools and authorship (Link to Emerald Publishing's stance on AI tools and authorship.Link to the Website). We will critically evaluate the AI-generated insights and only include feedback that we deem constructive and aligned with the goals of the volume. We will document our process, share the prompts used in our interactions with [generative AI program], and discuss our experience with this approach in the editorial introduction to the volume.

Our use of Generative AI in this process adheres to Emerald’s key principles concerning AI use in research and publishing (Link to Emerald publishing: Publishing ethics.Link to the Website). We have also consulted with Michael Lounsbury, the series editor for RSO, and Emerald Publishing to validate that they are comfortable with this approach. If you have any concerns, please don’t hesitate to directly reach out to us as the editors of the volume.

[…]

We’re excited to experiment with AI in this process, while upholding the values of transparency, quality, and human authorship that are central to scholarly publishing. We welcome any thoughts or questions you may have.

Best,

Vern, Christine, Deb, and Dev

[Opening paragraph]

 [Generate a unique opening paragraph that:

1. Expresses appreciation for the opportunity to review the manuscript

2. Briefly introduces yourself as an AI reviewer

3. Mentions that you’ll be incorporating perspectives inspired by [Scholar 1] and [Scholar 2]

4. Sets a professional yet engaging tone for the review]

[Section 1: Conceptual and Theoretical Evaluation]

1. Clarity and definition of key concepts

   • - [Feedback on concept clarity]

   • - [Suggestions for improvement]

2. Comprehensiveness of literature review and summary of existing research

   • - [Assessment of literature review’s thoroughness]

   • - [Identification of any gaps or missing perspectives]

3. Persuasiveness of established theoretical gap

   • - [Evaluation of the compelling nature of the identified gap]

   • - [Suggestions for strengthening the articulation of the gap]

4. Significance and scope of research question(s)

   • - [Perspective on the importance and relevance of the research question(s)]

   • - [Feedback on the alignment between the research question(s) and the identified gap]

[Section 2: Methodological Approach]

1. Description of empirical context and its appropriateness for the research question

   • - [Evaluation of the clarity and sufficiency of the context description]

   • - [Assessment of the fit between the context and the research question]

2. Fit between data and research question

   • - [Assessment of the alignment between the data and the research question]

   • - [Identification of any limitations or potential mismatches]

3. Description of data analysis process and its ability to address the research question

   • - [Evaluation of the clarity and appropriateness of the analysis procedures]

   • - [Suggestions for providing more detail or justification, if needed]

[Section 3: Evaluation of Findings]

1. Clarity of the presentation of findings

   • - [Feedback on the organization and clarity of the findings section]

   • - [Suggestions for improving the presentation of the findings, if needed]

2. Grounding of theoretical insights in empirical data

   • - [Assessment of how well the theoretical insights are supported by the data]

   • - [Identification of any areas where the link between data and theory could be strengthened]

3. Appropriate use of data/quotes to support interpretations and conclusions

   • - [Evaluation of the effectiveness of data/quotes in supporting the authors’ arguments]

   • - [Suggestions for better integrating data/quotes, if needed]

[Section 4: Contributions and Future Research]

1. Articulation of theoretical contributions

   • - [Feedback on the clarity and persuasiveness of the stated contributions]

   • - [Suggestions for refining the articulation of the contributions]

2. Significance of theoretical insights for advancing relevant literatures

   • - [Assessment of the novelty and importance of the theoretical insights]

   • - [Identification of the specific literatures the work contributes to and how]

3. Practical relevance and implications of the work

   • - [Perspective on the practical significance of the findings]

   • - [Suggestions for clarifying or expanding on practical implications]

4. Acknowledged limitations and future research directions

   • - [Evaluation of the adequacy of the discussion of limitations]

   • - [Feedback on the appropriateness and potential of the future research directions]

 [Closing paragraph]

[Generate a unique closing paragraph that:

1. Summarizes the key points of the review

2. Reiterates the manuscript’s potential

3. Provides encouragement for the authors in the revision process

4. Maintains a professional yet supportive tone]

Sincerely,

[AI Model Name]

AI Reviewer