We wish to express our gratitude to Fred Oswald and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. Work on the article was supported by the University of Melbourne's Faculty of Business and Economics.

This article adopts a cognitive neuroscience perspective to develop theory about the consequences of foreign language use in organizational settings. In contrast to previous work that has focused on the interpersonal effects of foreign language use, we focus on intra-personal, cognitive processes that affect employee performance. Our model delineates how foreign language processing depletes cognitive resources, which can ultimately result in biased decisionmaking and reduced self-regulation. We discuss theoretical and practical implications of our model for international business research in the context of an increasing number of organizations that have adopted a common corporate language.

In this feature topic, we explore the burgeoning trend to employ templates in qualitative research. To understand authors’ motivations to use templates and perceptions regarding template use in the scholarly community, we conducted an interview study with 21 interviewees who had published qualitative research in one of nine premier management journals between 2014 and 2018. Our analysis identified four key tensions in template use: structure versus restriction, convention versus innovativeness, legitimization versus obscuration, and instrumentality versus craft. We discuss these tensions and their implications for the practice and evaluation of qualitative research. We then introduce the eight empirical papers included in this feature topic. Each of them addresses and explores specific aspects of the origins and limitations of template use, whilst providing insights and guidance for future qualitative research. We envisage this feature topic to be a catalyst for discourse amongst scholars, engaging with contemporary trends and tensions to pave new pathways that embrace the diversity and plurality of qualitative approaches.

Peer review is a critical component toward facilitating a robust science in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Peer review exists beyond academic publishing in organizations, university departments, grant agencies, classrooms, and many more work contexts. Reviewers are responsible for judging the quality of research conducted and submitted for evaluation. Furthermore, they are responsible for treating authors and their work with respect, in a supportive and developmental manner. Given its central role in our profession, it is curious that we do not have formalized review guidelines or standards and that most of us never receive formal training in peer reviewing. To support this endeavor, we are proposing a competency framework for peer review. The purpose of the competency framework is to provide a definition of excellent peer reviewing and guidelines to reviewers for which types of behaviors will lead to good peer reviews. By defining these competencies, we create clarity around expectations for peer review, standards for good peer reviews, and opportunities for training the behaviors required to deliver good peer reviews. We further discuss how the competency framework can be used to improve peer reviewing and suggest additional steps forward that involve suggestions for how stakeholders can get involved in fostering high-quality peer reviewing.

A recent Journal of International Business Studies editorial on interaction effects within and across levels highlighted the importance of and difficulty associated with justifying and reporting of such interaction effects. The purpose of this editorial is to describe a type of interaction hypothesis that is very common in international business (IB) research: the restricted variance (RV) hypothesis. Specifically, we describe the nature of an RV interaction and its evidentiary requirements. We also offer several IB examples involving interactions that could have been supported with RV arguments. Our hope is that IB researchers can use this paper to bolster their arguments for interaction hypotheses by explaining them in terms of RV.