Balancing authorial voice and editorial omniscience: The "It's my paper and i'll say what i want to" versus "Ghostwriters in the Sky" Minuet

Opening the Black Box of Editorship

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 134-142

  Bedeian, Arthur G ^a  

^a LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 71949122829     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1057/9780230582590     Document Type: Chapter

References (27)

1. Bedeian, A. G. (1989, October). Totems and taboos: Undercurrents in the management discipline. (Presidential Address.) Academy of Management Newsletter, 19, 1-6. Retrieved January 12, 2007, from http://www.bus.lsu.edu/management/faculty/abedeian/ articles/Tottems&Taboos-AOM%20News-1999.pdf
2. Bedeian, A. G. (1996a). Improving the journal review process: The question of ghostwriting. American Psychologist, 51, 1189.
3. Bedeian, A. G. (1996b). Thoughts on making and remaking the management discipline. Journal of Management Inquiry, 5, 311-18.
4. Bedeian, A. G. (1997). Of fiction and fraud. Academy of Management Review, 22, 840-2.
5. Bedeian, A. G. (2003). The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 331-8.
6. Bedeian, A. G. (2004). Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3, 198-216.
7. Bedeian, A. G., Van Fleet, D. D., & Hyman, H. H., III (2007). Scientific achievement and editorial-board membership. In press, at Organizational Research Methods.
8. Beebe, J. (2006). Editing as a psychological practice. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 51, 329-56.
9. Belcher, W. (2006a). On journal rejection. Flourish: An electronic journal for scholarly writers, 2 (4). Retrieved January 5, 2007, from http://www.wendybelcher.com/pages/ FlourishNewsletter.html
10. Belcher, W. (2006b). On research on peer review. Flourish: An electronic journal for scholarly writers, 2 (7). Retrieved January 5, 2007, from http://www.wendybelcher.com/ pages/FlourishNewsletter.html
11. Biagioli, M. (2002). From book censorship to academic peer review. Emergences, 12, 11-45.
12. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Daft, R. L. (1983). Learning the craft of organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 8, 539-46.
14. Daniel, H. -D. (1993). Guardians of science: Fairness and reliability of peer review. (W. E. Russey, Trans.). Weinheim, Germany: VCH Verlagsgesellschaft.
15. De Rond, M., & Miller, A. N. (2005). Publish or perish: bane or boon of academic life? Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 321-9.
16. Ellison, G. (2002). The slowdown in the economics publishing process. Journal of Political Economy, 110, 947-93.
17. Feldman, D. C. (2005). Conversing with editors: Strategies for authors and reviewers. Journal of Management, 31, 649-58.
18. Freeman, R. E. (2005). The development of stakeholder theory: An idiosyncratic approach. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development (pp. 417-35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19. Frey, B. S. (2003). Publishing as prostitution?-Choosing between one's own ideas and academic success. Public Choice, 116, 205-23.
20. Miner, J. B. (2003). Commentary on Arthur Bedeian's "the manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors." Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 339-43.
21. Nifadkar, S. S., & Tsui, A. (2007). [Review of the book Great minds in management: The process of theory development]. Academy of Management Review, 32, 298-303.
22. Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Shepherd, G. B. (Ed.). (1995). Rejected: Leading economists ponder the publication process. Sun Lakes, AZ: Thomas Horton and Daughters.
24. Starbuck, W. H. (2003). Turning lemons into lemonade: Where is the value in peer review? Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 344-51.
25. Starbuck, W. H. (2005). How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science, 16, 180-200.
26. Starbuck, W. H. (2006). Organizational realities: Studies of strategizing and organizing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27. Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses. Medford, NJ: American Society for Information Science and Technology.