Why and where do academics publish?

Management (France)

Volumn 16, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 707-718

  Starbuck, William H ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84894090320     PISSN: 12864892     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Bedeian, A. G. (2008). Balancing authorial voice and editorial omniscience: The 'It's my paper and I'll say what I want to'/'Ghostwriters in the sky' minuet. In Y. Baruch, A. Konrad, H. Aguinis, & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Opening the Black Box of Editorship (pp. 134-142). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
2. Bhattacharjee, Y. (2013, April 26). The mind of a con man. New York Times
3. Certo, S. T., Sirmon, D. G., & Brymer, R. (2010). Competition and knowledge creation in management: Investigating changes in scholarship from 1988 to 2007. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9(4), 591-606
4. Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling Techniques. New York: Wiley
5. Diaconis, P., & Efron, B. (1983). Computer-intensive methods in statistics. Scientific American, 248(5), 116-130
6. Ellison, G. (2002). The slowdown of the economics publishing process. Journal of Political Economy, 110(5), 947-993
7. Eriksson, K. (2012). The nonsense math effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(6), 746-749
8. Gottfredson, S. D. (1978). Evaluating psychological research reports: Dimensions, reliability, and correlates of quality judgments. American Psychologist, 33(10), 920-934
9. Gottfredson, D. M., & Gottfredson, S. D. (1982). Criminal justice and (reviewer) behavior: How to get papers published. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 9(3), 259-272
10. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medecine, 2(8), e124
11. Kepes, S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2013). How trustworthy is the scientific literature in industrial and organizational psychology? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6(3), 252-268
12. Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(2), 161-175
13. Mahoney, M. J. (1979). Psychology of the scientist: An evaluative review. Social Studies of Science, 9(3), 349-375
14. Mazzola, J. J., & Deuling, J. K. (2013). Forgetting what we learned as graduate students: HARKing and selective outcome reporting in I-O journal articles. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6(3), 279-284
15. Nylenna, M., Riis, P., & Karlsson, Y. "Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts: Effects of referee characteristics and publication language." JAMA, 1994, 272: 149-151
16. Peter, J. P., & Olson, J. C. (1983). Is science marketing? Journal of Marketing, 47(4), 111-125
17. Peters, D. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(2), 187-255
18. Rousseeuw, P. J. & Leroy, A. M. (1987). Robust Regression and Outlier Detection. New York: Wiley
19. Schwab, A., & Starbuck, W. H. (2009). Null-hypothesis significance tests in behavioral and management research: We can do better. In D. Bergh & D. Ketchen (Eds.), Research Methodology in Strategy and Management (Vol. 5, pp. 29-54). New York: Elsevier JAI.
20. Schwab, A., Abrahamson, E., Starbuck, W. H., & Fidler, F. (2011). Researchers should make thoughtful assessments instead of null-hypothesis significance tests. Organization Science, 22(4), 1105-1120
21. Starbuck, W. H. (2005). How much better are the most prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science, 16(2), 180-200
22. Webster, E. J., & Starbuck, W. H. (1988). Theory building in industrial and organizational psychology. In C. L. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 93- 138). London: Wiley
23. Wolff, W. M. (1970). A study of criteria for journal manuscripts. American Psychologist, 25(7), 636-639