Editorial standard / v1
Source-Critical Convergence Review
A critical narrative-review method for reconstructing how a contemporary management category emerged, what older research actually supports, and where the evidence ends.
Seven controls
- 01
Define the historical objects
The phrase, present-day meaning, intellectual antecedents, organizational form, and outcome evidence are treated as different objects. A phrase can predate a concept, and a concept can predate its current name.
- 02
Search across scholarly traditions
Search moves beyond the contemporary label into business history, organization theory, marketing, sales, accounting, information systems, operations, service research, and relevant primary archives.
- 03
Build source and claim ledgers
Every substantive proposition is assigned to a claim and evidence lane. Sources are identified by stable title, DOI, publisher record, or primary archival URL, with limitations recorded rather than erased.
- 04
Separate description from causality
A corporate title can establish usage, not effectiveness. A cross-sectional association can suggest a relationship, not prove adoption caused an outcome. Strong causal language requires a design capable of supporting it.
- 05
Synthesize with boundary conditions
The paper reconstructs convergence without pretending every precursor was secretly the modern practice. Contradictory findings, coordination costs, endogeneity, sampling limits, and alternative explanations stay visible.
- 06
Audit the public adaptation
The web article must remain traceable to the audited research. Claims, citations, references, links, title, and excerpt are checked; raw HTML and executable MDX are not accepted by the public renderer.
- 07
Approve an exact artifact
Editorial approval binds cryptographic digests for the article and its audits. The site publishes only a manifest marked published whose approval matches those exact files. Editing a file after approval breaks the gate.
Cadence
A daily attempt, not a daily quota
The research routine may begin one candidate each day. It does not promise one publication each day. A weak evidence base, unresolved identity conflict, failed audit, or missing approval produces no article—not a lower-standard article.
Automation
Machines assist; evidence remains inspectable
Automated tools may search, compare records, draft prose, and run deterministic checks. They may not invent a source, waive a failed gate, silently change an approved artifact, or represent editorial review as scholarly peer review.
Status
Editorial review, not peer review
The Journal is an independent editorial publication. It does not operate anonymous external peer review, issue academic credentials, or claim that its synthesis replaces the underlying literature.
Corrections
The record should be correctable without becoming invisible.
Substantive corrections receive a new approved artifact and an updated publication date or correction note. Retractions remain addressable and explain why the work should no longer be relied upon. Quietly replacing evidence, changing citations after approval, or erasing a material error is outside the method.
A persistent public correction channel is still being established. Until it is available, the repository retains the approved artifact, evidence chain, and prior file history needed to review and document a correction without silently rewriting the record.