A substantial body of literature discusses the so-called rigor-relevance gap in management science and possible ways of overcoming it. A frequently advocated approach, in line with Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotny, Schwartz, and Trow’s “Mode 2” idea of creating “hybrid fora,” is the introduction of joint academic–practitioner review processes in management journals. In an empirical case study of one of the oldest management journals in the world, the authors show that the demands of academic and practitioner reviewers are hardly compatible, and, to some extent, inversely correlated. In contrast to other studies, here the authors show that the reason for the tension between academics and practitioners with regard to this issue does not lie in differences in the evaluation criteria of each group. Rather, the different worldviews of academics and practitioners lead to different interpretations of these criteria and a striking incongruence between the two groups’ ideas of practical relevance.
