Management journals publish research that can be divided into many fields and originate from many theories, but in one regard all are similar: the presentation of data according to professional conventions. The presentation of empirical findings expresses broad agreement across theories, fields of study, and researcher background, an agreement that is upheld by doctoral training and by scholars learning presentation conventions through reading journal articles. The agreement is most easily uncovered by examining empirical papers in other fields of study, which quickly yields two conclusions. First, the fields are different from the management field; second, many of them have greater internal diversity in evidence presentation than management does. In particular, empirical articles outside management use more graphical displays to show the data in addition to showing model estimates, and have a great variety of graphing techniques.

‘The truth is under attack’, I wrote earlier this decade (Levine, 2012). As the replication crisis became apparent, the alarm was timely. But now, a counter-attack is raging. In its arsenal are replications, open data, shared instruments, pre-registration of hypotheses and now – data visualizations.

At the June 2016 meeting of the International Association for Chinese Management Research, MOR organized a symposium to discuss the mounting criticisms of empirical social science and subsequent changes, as part of ongoing discussions affecting journal reviewing policies. This article overviews the history of modern empirical social science as the foundation of management, organization, and strategy research and the criticism of social science research, which has reached the point that some critics refer to current publication norms as encouraging and enabling the publication of junk science. Most importantly, however, this article outlines MOR's strategy going forward and the new reviewing initiatives that MOR is implementing as of Volume 13 (2017).