The Manuscript Review Process: The Proper Roles of Authors, Referees, and Editors

Journal of Management Inquiry

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 331-338

  Bedeian, Arthur G ^a  

^a LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Editorial peer review; Journal editing; Publishing process; Social construction of knowledge

Indexed keywords

EID: 0344585487     PISSN: 10564926     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1056492603258974     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Ashford, S. J. (1996). The publishing process: The struggle for meaning. In P. J. Frost & M. S. Taylor (Eds.), Rhythms of academic life: Personal accounts of careers in academia (pp. 119-128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2. Bedeian, A. G. (1996). Improving the journal review process: The question of ghostwriting. American Psychologist, 51, 1189.
3. Biggart, N. W. (2000, spring). From the chair. Organizations, Occupations, & Work, pp. 1-2.
4. Bradley, J. V. (1981). Pernicious publication practices. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 18, 31-34.
5. Graham, J. W., & Stablein, R. E. (1985). A funny thing happened on the way to publication: Newcomers' perspectives on publishing in the organizational sciences. In L. L. Cummings & P. J. Frost (Eds.), Publishing in the organizational sciences (pp. 138-154). Homewood, IL: Irwin.
6. Kinicki, A. J., & Prussia, G. E. (2000). From members of the editorial board. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 799-800.
7. Lee, T. W. (2002). From the editors. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 9-11.
8. Leblebici, H. (1996). The act of reviewing and being a reviewer. In P. J. Frost & M. S. Taylor (Eds.), Rhythms of academic life: Personal accounts of careers in academia (pp. 269-274). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9. Levenson, R. L., Jr. (1996). Enhance the journals, not the review process. American Psychologist, 51, 1191-1193.
10. Merton, R. K. (1973). Priorities in scientific discovery. In N. Storer (Ed.), The sociology of science (pp. 267-278). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1942)
11. Mowday, R. T. (1997). Celebrating 40 years of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1400-1413.
12. Northcraft, G. B. (2001). From the editors. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1079-1080.
13. Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18, 599-620.
14. Romanelli, E. (1996). Becoming a reviewer: Lessons somewhat painfully learned. In P. J. Frost & M. S. Taylor (Eds.), Rhythms of academic life: Personal accounts of careers in academia (pp. 263-268). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15. Schminke, M. (2002). Tensions. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 487-490.
16. Smith, L. Z. (1998). Anonymous review and the boundaries of intrinsic merit. Journal of Information Ethics, 7, 54-67.
17. Spector, P. E. (1998, fall). When reviewers become authors: A comment on the journal review process. Research Methods Forum, pp. 1-4.
18. Van Lange, P. A. M. (1999). Why authors believe that reviewers stress limiting aspects of manuscripts: The SLAM effect in peer review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2550-2566.