The ombudsman: Reaction to Armstrong's "management folklore and management science"

Interfaces

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 81-93

  Miser, Hugh J ^a  

^a NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0041181135     PISSN: 00922102     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1287/inte.28.4.81     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Armstrong, J. S. 1996, "The ombudsman: Management folklore and management science - On portfolio planning, escalation bias, and such," Interfaces, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 28-42.
2. Armstrong, J. S. 1997, "Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation," Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 63-84. (Available from the author and on the website www -marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/faculty /armstrng.html.)
3. Armstrong, J. S. 1982, "Barriers to scientific contributions: The author's formula," Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 197-199.
4. Bakanic, V.; McPhail, C.; and Simon, R. J. 1990, "If at first you don't succeed: Review procedures for revised and resubmitted manuscripts," American Sociologist, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 373-391.
5. Cicchetti, D. V. 1991, "The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submission: A cross disciplinary investigation," Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14 (March), pp. 119-186.
6. Franke, R. H.; Edlund, T. W.; and Oster, F. 1990, "The development of strategic management: Journal quality and article impact," Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 243-253.
7. Jauch, L. R. and Wall, J. L. 1989, "What they do when they get your manuscript: A survey of Academy of Management reviewer practices," Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32, pp. 157-173.
8. King, D. W.; McDonald, D. D.; and Roderer, N. K. 1981, Scientific Journals in the United States: Their Production, Use, and Economics, Hutchison Ross, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.
9. Kupfersmid, J. and Wonderly, D. M. 1994, An Author's Guide to Publishing Better Articles in Better Journals in the Behavioral Sciences, Clinical Psychology Publishing Co., Brandon, Vermont.
10. Lock, S. and Smith, J. 1990, "What do peer reviewers do?" Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 263, No. 10, pp. 1341-1343.
11. Marsh, H. W. and Ball, S. 1989, "The peer review process used to evaluate manuscripts submitted to academic journals: Interjudgmental reliability," Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 151-169.
12. Munley, P. H.; Sharkin, B.; and Gelso, C. J. 1988, "Reviewer ratings and agreement on manuscripts reviewed for the Journal of Counseling Psychology," Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 198-202.
13. Shepherd, G. B., ed. 1995, Rejected: Leading Economists Ponder the Publication Process, Thomas Horton and Daughters, Sun Lakes, Arizona.
14. Simon, R.; Bakanic, V; and McPhail, C. 1986, "Who complains to editors and what happens," Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 56, pp. 259-271.
15. Slovic, P. and MacPhillamy, D. 1974, "Dimensional commensurability and cue utilization in comparative judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 11, pp. 172-194.
16. Yankauer, A. 1990, "Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review?" Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 263, pp. 1338-1340.