The editor's secrets

Marketing Science

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 589-595

  Shugan, Steven M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Citations; Electronic journals; Marketing science; Peer review; Print journals; Referees; Research streams; The review process

Indexed keywords

EID: 38549085240     PISSN: 07322399     EISSN: 1526548X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1070.0309     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Armstrong, J. S. 1979. Advocacy and objectivity in science. Management Sci. 25(5) 423-428.
2. Azar, O. H. 2006. The academic review process: How can we make it more efficient? Amer. Economist 50(1) 37-50.
3. Azar, O. H. 2007. The slowdown in first-response times of economics journals: Can it be beneficial? Econom. Inquiry 45(1) 179-187.
4. Azbel, M. 1993. Could Columbus have passed peer review? Phys. Today 46(6) 13-15.
5. Besanko, D., J.-P. Dubé, S. Gupta. 2005. Own-brand and cross-brand retail pass-through. Marketing Sci. 24(1) 123-137.
6. Brown, G. H. 1952. Brand loyalty - Fact or fiction? Advertising Age 23(Junc) 53-55.
7. Chintagunta, P., T. Erdem, P. E. Rossi, M. Wedel. 2006. Structural modeling in marketing: Review and assessment. Marketing Sci. 25(6) 604-616.
8. Clark, A., J. Singleton-Jackson, R. Newsom. 2000. Journal editing: Managing the peer review process for timely publication of articles. Publishing Res. Quart. 16(3)62-71.
9. Daniel, H. D. 1993. Guardians of Science: Fairness and Reliability of Peer Review. VCH Publishers, New York.
10. Eliashberg, J., A. Elberse, M. A. A. M. Leenders. 2006. The motion picture industry: Critical issues in practice, current research, and new research directions. Marketing Sci. 25(6) 638-661.
11. Ewing, M. 2006. Confessions of an advertising reviewer. Internat. J. Adivrtising 25(2) 250-252.
12. Frey, B. S. 2003. Publishing as prostitution? - Choosing between one's own ideas and academic success. Public Choice 116(1-2) 205-223.
13. Gans, J. S., G. B. Shepherd. 1994. How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles by leading economists. J. Econom. Perfect. 8(1) 165-179.
14. Gilmore, A., D. Carson, C. Perry. 2006. Academic publishing; Best practice for editors, guest editors, authors, and reviewers. Eur. Bus. Rev. 18(6) 468-178.
15. Hamermesh, D. S. 1994. Facts and myths about refereeing. J. Econom. Perspect. 8(1) 153-163.
16. Laband, D. N. 1990. Is there value-added from the review process in economics? Quart. J. Econom. 105(2) 341-352.
17. McFadden, D. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. P. Zarembka, ed. Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, New York, 105-142.
18. Medoff, M. H. 2003. Editorial favoritism in economics? Southern Econom. J. 70(2) 425-434.
19. Mittal, V., E. W. Anderson, A. Sayrak, P. Tadikamalla. 2005. Dual emphasis and the long-term financial impact of customer satisfaction. Marketing Sci. 24(4) 544-555.
20. Mizzaro, S. 2003. Quality control in scholarly publishing: A new proposal. J. Amer. Soc. Inform. Sci. Tech. 54(11) 989-1005.
21. Peters, D. P., S. J. Ceci. 1982. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral Brain Sci. 5(2) 187-195.
22. Priem, R. L. 2006. What happens when special issues just aren't "special" anymore? J. Management Inquiry 15(4) 383-388.
23. Rodriguez, M. A., J. Bollen, H. Van de Sompel. 2006. The convergence of digital libraries and the peer-review process. J. Inform. Sci. 32(2) 149-150.
24. Rust, R. T., T. S. Chung. 2006. Marketing models of service and relationships. Marketing Sci. 25(6) 560-580.
25. Scott, A. 2007. Peer review and the relevance of science. Futures 39(7) 827-845.
26. Shepherd, G. B. 1995. Rejected: Leading Economists Ponder the Publication Process. Thomas Horton & Daughters, Sun Lakes, AZ.
27. Shugan, S. M. 2002. Editorial: The mission of Marketing Science. Marketing Sci. 21(1) 1-13.
28. Shugan, S. M. 2003. Editorial: Compartmentalized reviews and other initiatives: Should marketing scientists review manuscripts in consumer behavior? Marketing Sci. 22(2) 151-160.
29. Shugan, S. M. 2004. The impact of advancing technology on marketing and academic research. Marketing Sci. 23(4) 469-475.
30. Shugan, S. M. 2005. Editorial: Brand loyalty programs: Are they shams? Marketing Sci. 24(2) 185-193.
31. Shugan, S. M. 2006. Editorial: Save research - Abandon the case method of teaching. Marketing Sci. 25(2) 109-115.
32. Shugan, S. M. 2007. It's the findings, stupid, not the assumptions. Marketing Sci. 26(4) 449-159.
33. Staelin, R. 1998. Last reflections of the editor. Marketing Sci. 17(4) 297-300.
34. Starbuck, W. H. 2005. How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organ. Sci. 16(2) 180-202.
35. Stewart, D. W. 2002. Getting published: Reflections of an old editor. J. Marketing 66(4) 1-6.
36. Theoharakis, V., A. Hirst. 2002. Perceptual differences of marketing journals: A worldwide perspective. Marketing Lett. 13(4) 389-402.
37. Thornton, M. 2004. Does academic publishing pass the real market test? Public Choice 120(1-2) 41-61.
38. Tsang, E. W. K., B. S. Frey. 2007. The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas. Acad. Management Learning Education 6(1) 128-136.
39. Tucker, A. W. 1950. A two-person dilemma. Unpublished, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
40. Tucker, A. W. 1983. The mathematics of Tucker: A sampler. Two-Year College Math. J. 14(3) 228-232.
41. Weller, A. C. 2000. Editorial peer review for electronic journals: Current issues and emerging models. J. Amer. Soc. Inform. Sci. Tech. 51(14) 1328-1333.