Reviewers are not perfect but could they try harder?

Journal of Business Research

Volumn 67, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 1967-1970

  Min, Kyeong Sam ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS   (United States)

Author keywords

Debiasing; Judgment errors and biases; Review process; Reviewer

Indexed keywords

EID: 84901444839     PISSN: 01482963     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.11.002     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Amabile T.M. Brilliant but cruel: Perceptions of negative evaluations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1983, 19(2):146-156.
2. Arkes H. Costs and benefits of judgment errors: Implications for debiasing. Psychological Bulletin 1991, 110(3):486-498.
3. Armstrong J.S. Discovery and communication of important marketing findings: Evidence and proposals. Journal of Business Research 2003, 56(1):69-84.
4. Caligiuri P., Thomas D.C. From the editors: How to write a high-quality review. Journal of International Business Studies 2013, 44(6):547-553.
5. Colquitt J.A., George G. From the editors: Publishing in AMJ - Part 1: Topic choice. Academy of Management Journal 2011, 54(3):432-435.
6. Colquitt J.A., Ireland R.D. From the editors: Taking the mystery out of AMJ's reviewer evaluation form. Academy of Management Journal 2009, 52(2):224-228.
7. Corley K.G., Gioia D.A. Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution?. Academy of Management Review 2011, 36(1):12-32.
8. Gilliland S.W., Cortina J.M. Reviewer and editor decision making in the journal review process. Personnel Psychology 1997, 50(2):427-452.
9. Grant A.M., Pollock T.G. From the editors: Publishing in AMJ - Part 3: Setting the hook. Academy of Management Journal 2011, 54(5):873-879.
10. Huber J. The value of sticky articles. Journal of Marketing Research 2008, 45(3):257-260.
11. Jauch L.R., Wall J.L. What they do when they get your manuscript: A survey of Academy of Management reviewer practices. Academy of Management Journal 1989, 32(1):157-173.
12. JCR Manuscript Review Histories Retrieved October 25, 2003, from. http://www.ejcr.org/teaching-sets/teachingsets.html.
13. Kachelmeier S.J. Reviewing the review process. Journal of the American Taxation Association 2004, 26:143-154. (Supplement).
14. Kahneman D., Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica 1979, 47(2):263-291.
15. Kardes F.R. Consumer behavior: Managerial decision making 2002, Addison-Wesley, New York.
16. Kohli A.K. From the editor: Reflections on the review process. Journal of Marketing 2011, 75(6):1-4.
17. Langhe B.D., van Osselaer S.M., Wierenga B. The effects of process and outcome accountability on judgment process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 2011, 115(2):238-252.
18. Larrick R.P. Debiasing. Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making 2004, 316-337. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA. D.J. Koehler, N. Harvey (Eds.).
19. Lepak D. Editor's comments: What is good reviewing?. Academy of Management Review 2009, 34(3):375-381.
20. Lerner J.S., Tetlock P.E. Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin 1999, 125(2):225-275.
21. Lord C.G., Lepper M.R., Preston E. Considering the opposite: A corrective strategy for social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1984, 47(6):1231-1243.
22. Lount R.B., Zhong C.B., Sivanathan N., Murnighan J.K. Getting off on the wrong foot: The timing of a breach and the restoration of trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2008, 34(12):1601-1612.
23. Lovejoy T.I., Revenson T.A., France C.R. Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: A primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 2011, 42(1):1-13.
24. Lynch J.G. Reviewing. Advances in Consumer Research 1998, Vol. 25:1-60. Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT. J.W. Alba, W. Hutchinson (Eds.).
25. Omer T.C., Porter S., Yetman R., Magro A., Mills L., Sansing R., et al. A discussion with reviewers: Insights from the midyear ATA meetings. Journal of the American Taxation Association 2004, 26:135-141. (Supplement).
26. Ortinau D.J. Writing and publishing important scientific articles: A reviewer's perspective. Journal of Business Research 2011, 64(2):150-156.
27. Ostrom A.A. Achieving reviewer readiness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2003, 31(3):337-340.
28. Ragins B.R. Editor's comments: Reflections on the craft of clear writing. Academy of Management Review 2012, 37(4):493-501.
29. Rozin P., Royzman E.B. Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2001, 5(4):296-320.
30. Shugan S.M. Editorial: Defining interesting research problems. Marketing Science 2003, 22(1):1-15.
31. Suls J., Martin R. The air we breathe: A critical look at practices and alternatives in the peer-review process. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2010, 4(1):40-50.
32. Summers J.O. Guidelines for conducting research and publishing in marketing: From conceptualization through the review process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2001, 29(4):405-415.
33. Taylor S. Big r (versus little r) reviewers: The anonymous coauthor. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2003, 31(3):341-343.
34. Tversky A. Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review 1972, 79(4):281-299.
35. Varadarajan R. Introduction to special section: Reflections on research in marketing and reviewing for scholarly journals. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2003, 31(3):312-313.
36. Woodside A.G. Journal and author impact metrics: An editorial. Journal of Business Research 2009, 62(1):1-4.