Is This Referee Really My Peer? A Challenge to the Peer-Review Process

Journal of Management Inquiry

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 166-171

  Tsang, Eric W K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS   (United States)

Author keywords

journal submission; peer review; philosophy based article; referee

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876455423     PISSN: 10564926     EISSN: 15526542     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1056492612461306     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Bedeian A. G.The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors.Journal of Management Inquiry. 2003;12:331-338.
2. Bedeian A. G.Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline.Academy of Management Learning & Education. 2004;3:198-216.
3. Day N. E.The silent majority: Manuscript rejection and its impact on scholars.Academy of Management Learning & Education. 2011;10:704-718.
4. Durand R.,Vaara E.Causation, counterfactuals, and competitive advantage.Strategic Management Journal. 2009;30:1245-1264.
5. Edmonds D.,Eidinow J.Wittgenstein's poker: The story of a ten-minute argument between two great philosophers. New York, NY: HarperCollins; 2001:.
6. Eisenhart M.The paradox of peer review: Admitting too much or allowing too little?.Research in Science Education. 2002;32:241-255.
7. Fine M. A.Reflections on enhancing accountability in the journal review process.American Psychologist. 1996;51:883-885.
8. Godfrey P. C.,Hill C. W. L.The problem of unobservables in strategic management research.Strategic Management Journal. 1995;16:519-533.
9. Horrobin D. F.Peer commentary on peer review: A case study in scientific control. Harnad S., ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1982:33-34.
10. Hurley P.A concise introduction to logic. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; 2003:.
11. Johnson P.,Duberley J.Understanding management research. London, England: SAGE; 2000:.
12. Kwan K.-M.,Tsang E. W. K.Realism and constructivism in strategy research: A critical realist response to Mir and Watson.Strategic Management Journal. 2001;22:1163-1168.
13. Lee A. S.,Baskerville R. L.Generalizing generalizability in information systems research.Information Systems Research. 2003;14:221-243.
14. Lee A. S.,Baskerville R. L.Conceptualizing generalizability: New contributions and a reply.MIS Quarterly. 2012;36:749-761.
15. Lee T. W.From the editors.Academy of Management Journal. 2002;45:9-11.
16. Masterman M.Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Lakatos I.Musgrave A., ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1970:59-89.
17. McKelvey B.Quasi-natural organization science.Organization Science. 1997;8:352-380.
18. Miller C. C.Peer review in the organizational and management sciences: Prevalence and effects of reviewing hostility, bias, and dissensus.Academy of Management Journal. 2006;49:425-431.
19. Miner J. B.Commentary on Arthur Bedeian's "The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors.".Journal of Management Inquiry. 2003;12:339-343.
20. Mir R.,Watson A.Strategic management and the philosophy of science: The case for a constructivist methodology.Strategic Management Journal. 2000;21:941-953.
21. Naraniecki A.Neo-positivist or neo-Kantian? Karl Popper and the Vienna Circle.Philosophy. 2010;85:511-530.
22. Popper K.The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY: Routledge; 2002a:.
23. Popper K.Unended quest. New York, NY: Routledge; 2002b:.
24. Poundstone W.Labyrinths of reason: Paradox, puzzles, and the reality of knowledge. New York, NY: Anchor Books; 1990:.
25. Roth W.-M.Editorial power/authorial suffering.Research in Science Education. 2002;32:215-240.
26. Starbuck W. H.Turning lemons into lemonade: Where is the value in peer reviews?.Journal of Management Inquiry. 2003;12:344-351.
27. Tight M.Reviewing the reviewers.Quality in Higher Education. 2003;9:295-303.
28. Tsang E. W. K.Behavioral assumptions and theory development: The case of transaction cost economics.Strategic Management Journal. 2006;27:999-1011.
29. Tsang E. W. K.,Ellsaesser F.How contrastive explanation facilitates theory building.Academy of Management Review. 2011;36:404-419.
30. Tsang E. W. K.,Frey B. S.The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas.Academy of Management Learning & Education. 2007;6:128-136.
31. Tsang E. W. K.,Kwan K.-M.Replication and theory development in organizational science: A critical realist perspective.Academy of Management Review. 1999;24:759-780.
32. Tsang E. W. K.,Williams J. N.Generalization and induction: Misconceptions, clarifications, and a classification of induction.MIS Quarterly. 2012;36:729-748.
33. Tsoukas H.The validity of idiographic research explanations.Academy of Management Review. 1989;14:551-561.
34. Van Lange P. A. M.Why authors believe that reviewers stress limiting aspects of manuscripts: The SLAM effect in peer review.Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1999;29:2550-2566.
35. Welch C.,Piekkari R.,Plakoyiannaki E.,Paavilainen-Mäntymäki E.Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research.Journal of International Business Studies. 2011;42:740-762.