Emperor’s New Clothes: The Reinvention of Peer Review as Myth

Journal of Management Inquiry

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 264-279

  Macdonald, Stuart ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

creativity; innovation; management education; philosophy of science

Indexed keywords

EID: 84930152052     PISSN: 10564926     EISSN: 15526542     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1056492614554773     Document Type: Article

References (152)

1. Adler N.,Harzing A.-W.When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings.Academy of Management Learning & Education. 2009;8:72-95
2. Ancker J.,Flanagin A.A comparison of conflict of interest policies at peer-reviewed journals in different scientific disciplines.Science and Engineering Ethics. 2007;13:147-157
3. Angell M.The truth about the drug companies. New York, NY: Random House; 2004:
4. Armstrong J.Peer review of scientific papers.Journal of Biological Response Modifiers. 1984;3:10-14
5. Baden-Fuller C.,Ravazzolo F.,Schweizer T.Making and measuring reputations.Long Range Planning. 2000;33:621-650
6. Bedeian A.Improving the journal review process: The question of ghostwriting.American Psychologist. 1996;51:1189
7. Bedeian A.Of fiction and fraud: A comment on Barry and Elmes’ article.Academy of Management Review. 1997;22:840-842
8. Bedeian A.The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors.Journal of Management Inquiry. 2003;12:331-338
9. Bedeian A.Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline.Academy of Management Learning & Education. 2004;3:198-216
10. Bedeian A.Even if the tower is “ivory,” it isn’t “white”: Understanding the consequences of faculty cynicism.Academy of Management Learning & Education. 2007;6:9-32
11. Bedeian A.Opening the black box of editorship. Baruch Y.Konrad A.Aquinas H.Starbuck W., ed. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan; 2008:134-142.
12. Bedeian A.,Taylor S. G.,Miller A. N.Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors.Academy of Management Learning & Education. 2010;9:715-725
13. Bergstrom T.Free labour for costly journals?.Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2001;15:183-198
14. Bidney D.Myth, symbolism, and truth.Journal of American Folklore. 1955;68:379-392
15. Braley M.Reed Elsevier: Moving the Supertanker Company Focus: Global Equity Research Report. Deutsche Bank, Frankfurt: ; 2005:
16. Peer review: The challenges for the humanities and social sciences. London, England: British Academy; 2007:
17. Bunting C.Early careers spent grinding teeth, not cutting them.Times Higher Education. 2005;:18
18. Casadevall A.,Fang F.Is peer review censorship?.Infection and Immunity. 2009;77:1273-1274
19. Cawkell A.Citation practices.Documentation. 1968;24:299-310
20. Ceci S.,Peters D.Peer review: A study of reliability.Change: The Magazine of Higher Education. 1982;14 (6): 44-48
21. Cohen P.Theories of myth.Man. 1969;4:337-353
22. Davidoff F.,DeAngelis C.,Drazen J.,Hoey J.,Hojgaard L.,Horton R.,..Wilkes M.Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability.The Lancet. 2001;358:854-855
23. Dewatripont M.,Legros P.,Ginsburgh V.,Walckiers A.Pricing of scientific journals and market power.Journal of the European Economic Association. 2007;5:400-410
24. Edlin A.,Rubinfeld D.Exclusion or efficient pricing? The “big deal” bundling of academic journals.Antitrust Law Journal. 2004;72:119-157
25. Eichenwald K.,Kolata G.Drug trials hide conflicts for doctors: Research for hire.The New York Times. 1999;1:34-35
26. Falk R.Academic freedom under siege.International Studies Perspectives. 2007;8:369-375
27. Fang F.,Steen R.,Casadevall A.Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2012;109:17028-17033
28. Fitzpatrick K.Publishing, technology and the future of the academy. New York: New York University Press; 2011:
29. Flanagin A.,Carey L.,Fontanarosa P.,Phillips S,Pace B.,Lundberg G.,Rennie D.Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals.Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998;280:222-224
30. Fox J.,Nousala S..Paper presented to the Fourth International Conference on Engineering and Technological Innovation; 2011Orlando, FL; 2011.
31. Frey B.Publishing as prostitution? Choosing between one’s own ideas and academic success.Public Choice. 2003;116:205-223
32. Frey B.,Osterloh M.Ranking games. Switzerland: Department of Economics, University of Zurich; 2011:
33. GallagherJ. (2014, July2). Japanese stem-cell “breakthrough” findings retracted. BBC News. Retrieved from www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28124749
34. Gannon F.Is the system dumbing down research?.European Molecular Biology Organization Reports. 2005;6 (5): 387
35. Gans J.,Shepherd G.How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles by leading economists.Journal of Economic Perspectives. 1994;8 (1): 165-179
36. Garfield E.Selecting the all-time citation classics. Here are the fifty most cited papers for 1961-1972.Current Contents. 1974;2:6-9
37. Garfield E..Paper presented at a conference on Theory and Practice of Research Assessment; 1996Capri, Italy; 1996.
38. Garfield E.The history and meaning of the journal impact factor.Journal of the American Medical Association. 2006;295:90-93
39. Glick W.,Miller C.,Cardinal L.Making a life in the field of organization science.Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2007;28:817-835
40. Godlee F.,Gale C.,Martyn C.Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: A randomized controlled trial.Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998;280:237-240
41. Goldbeck-Wood S.Evidence on peer review—Scientific quality control or smokescreen?.British Medical Journal. 1999;318:44-45
42. GrantB. (2009a, April30). Merck published fake journal. The Scientist. Retrieved from http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27376/title/Merck-published-fake-journal/
43. GrantB. (2009b, May7). Elsevier published 6 fake journals. The Scientist. Retrieved from http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27383/title/Elsevier-published-6-fake-journals/
44. Guston D.Learning from science and technology policy evaluation: Experiences from the United States and Europe. Shapira P.Khulmann S., ed. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar; 2003:81-97.
45. Hagstrom W.Competition in science.American Sociological Review. 1974;39:1-18
46. Hall W.,Nousala S..Paper presented to the Second International Symposium on Peer Reviewing; 2010Orlando, FL; 2010.
47. HansenM. (2009, May7). Statement from Michael Hansen, CEO of Elsevier’s Health Sciences Division, Philadelphia. Retrieved from http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/health-sciences/statement-from-michael-hansen,-ceo-of-elseviers-health-sciences-division,-regarding-australia-based-sponsored-journal-practices-between-2000-and-2005
48. Hansson F.Research evaluation and organisational learning in the university: A possible coexistence?.International Journal of Learning and Change. 2006;1:267-284
49. Harley S.The impact of research selectivity on academic work and identity in UK universities.Studies in Higher Education. 2002;27:187-205
50. Harley S.,Lee F.Research selectivity, managerialism, and the academic labor process: The future of nonmainstream economics in UK universities.Human Relations. 1997;50:1427-1460
51. HarnadS. (2000). The invisible hand of peer review. Exploit Interactive, 5(5). Retrieved from www.exploit-lib.org/issue5/peer-review/
52. Harvie D.,Lightfoot G.,Lilley S.,Weir K.What are we to do with feral publishers?.Organization. 2012;19:905-914
53. Harzing A.-W.Are our referencing errors undermining our scholarship and credibility? The case of expatriate failure rates.Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2002;23:127-148
54. Harzing A.-W.Document categories in the ISI Web of Knowledge: Misunderstanding the social sciences?.Scientometrics. 2013;94:23-34
55. Heinze T.,Shapira P.,Rogers J.,Senker J.Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research.Research Policy. 2009;38:610-623
56. Hemlin S.,Rasmussen S.The shift in academic quality control.Science, Technology & Human Values. 2006;31:173-198
57. Hochberg M.,Chase J.,Gotelli N.,Hastings A.,Naeem S.The tragedy of the reviewer commons.Ecology Letters. 2009;12:2-4
58. Hojat M.,Gonnella J.,Caelleigh A.Impartial judgment by the “gatekeepers” of science: Fallibility and accountability in the peer review process.Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2003;8:75-96
59. Holden C.NEJM admits breaking its own tough rules.Science. 2000 1573;287:
60. Horrobin D.The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation.Journal of the American Medical Association. 1990;263:1438-1441
61. Horrobin D.Something rotten at the core of science?.Trends in Pharmacological Sciences. 2001;22:51-52
62. Peer review in scientific publications. London, England: Science and Technology Committee, Stationery Office; 2011:
63. Ioannidis J.Why most published research findings are false.PLoS Medcine. 2005;2 (8): e124
64. Jacobs A.,Hamilton C.Decreased evidence of ghostwriting in a 2008 vs 2005 survey of medical writers.The Write Stuff. 2009;18:118-123
65. Jarley P.,Chandler T.,Faulk L.Are we playing the same game?: Publishing task environments and research productivity among management specialists.Human Relations. 1998;51:799-824
66. Jefferson T.,Alderson P.,Wager E.,Davidoff F.Effects of editorial peer review.Journal of the American Medical Association. 2002;287:2784-2786
67. Johnson J.,Podsakoff P.Journal influence in the field of management: An analysis using Salancik’s Index in a dependency network.Academy of Management Journal. 1994;37:1392-1407
68. Joseph R.Silicon Valley myth and the origins of technology parks in Australia.Science and Public Policy. 1989;16:353-366
69. Joseph R.Political myth, high technology and the information superhighway: An Australian perspective.Telematics and Informatics. 1997;14:289-301
70. Judge T.Marginalizing the.Journal of Applied Psychology. Industrial-Organizational Psychologist. 2003;40:56-59
71. Jump P.“Fake but well-written” reviews fool publisher.Times Higher Education. 2012;:8
72. Kmietowicz Z.Consumer organisations criticize influence of drug companies.British Medical Journal. 2004;329:937
73. Kronick D.Medical “publishing societies” in eighteenth century Britain.Bulletin of the Medical Library Association. 1994;82:277-282
74. KuklaR. (2011, July19). Re: How do journal editors pick referees [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2011/07/how-do-journal-editors-pick-referees.html
75. Langley C.,Parkinson S.Science and the corporate agenda. Folkstone, UK: Scientists for Global Responsibility; 2009:
76. Lavelle J.Facts of journal publishing, iv.Publications of the Modern Language Association of America. 1966;81 (6): 3-12
77. Lee F.The ranking game, class, and scholarship in American mainstream economics.Australasian Journal of Economics Education. 2006;3 (1-2): 1-41
78. LowryO. (1969, November11). [Letter to Derek de Solla Price]. Retrieved from www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1977/A1977DM02300001.pdf
79. Lowry O.,Rosebrough N.,Farr A.,Randall R.Protein measurement with the folin phenol reagent.Journal of Biological Chemistry. 1951;193:265-275
80. Luukkonen T.Conservatism and risk-taking in peer review: Emerging ERC practices.Research Evaluation. 2012;21:48-60
81. Macdonald S.Agricultural improvement and the neglected labourer.Agricultural History Review. 1983;31:81-90
82. MacdonaldS. (2011a). Seducing the goose: A review of patenting by UK universities. Intellectual Property Quarterly, 4, 323-344.
83. Macdonald S.The skewed few: People and papers of quality in management studies.Organization. 2011b;18:467-476
84. Macdonald S.,Kam J.Aardvark et al..: Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies.Journal of Information Science. 2007a;33:702-717
85. Macdonald S.,Kam J.Ring a ring o’ roses: Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies.Journal of Management Studies. 2007b;44:640-655
86. Macdonald S.,Kam J.Quality journals and gamesmanship in Management Studies.Management Research News. 2008;31 (9): 595-606
87. Macdonald S.,Kam J.Publishing in top journals—A never-ending fad.Scandinavian Journal of Management. 2009;25:221-224
88. Macdonald S.,Kam J.Counting footnotes: Citability in management studies.Scandinavian Journal of Management. 2010;26:189-203
89. Madden A.When did peer review become anonymous?.Aslib Proceedings. 2000;52:273-276
90. Mahoney M.Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system.Cognitive Therapy and Research. 1977;1:161-175
91. Martin B.Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment.Research Policy. 2013;42:1005-1014
92. McCookA. (2006, February1). Is peer review broken?The Scientist. Retrieved from http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/23672/title/Is-Peer-Review-Broken-/
93. McGuiganG.RussellR. (2008). The business of academic publishing: A strategic analysis of the academic journal publishing industry and its impact on the future of scholarly publishing. Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, 9(3). Retrieved from http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v09n03/mcguigan_g01.html
94. Merilainen S.,Tienari J.,Thomas R.,Davies A.Hegemonic academic practices: Experiences of publishing from the periphery.Organization. 2008;15:584-597
95. Meyers B.Peer review software: Has it made a mark on the world of scholarly journals?. North Andover, MA: Aries Systems Corporation; 2004:
96. Miller A.,Taylor S.,Bedeian A.Publish or perish: Academic life as management faculty live it.Career Development International. 2011;16:422-445
97. Miller C.Peer review in the organizational and management sciences: Prevalence and effects of reviewer hostility, bias, and dissensus.Academy of Management Journal. 2006;49:425-431
98. Miner J.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
99. Misakian A.,Bero L.Publication bias and research on passive smoking.Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998;280:250-253
100. Monbiot G.Guard dogs of perception: The corporate takeover of science.Science and Engineering Ethics. 2003;9:49-57
101. MonbiotG. (2011, August29). Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/academic-publishers-murdoch-socialist
102. MoretB. (1997). Bridging the gap between theory and practice. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 3(1). Retrieved from http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/03-01/JEA.html
103. Mulligan A.Is peer review in crisis?.Perspectives in Publishing. 2004;2:1-6
104. NeckerS. (2014). Scientific misbehavior in economics: Unacceptable research practice linked to perceive pressure to publish. LSE Blogs. Retrieved from blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/07/23/scientific-misbehavior-in-economics/
105. Neylon C.Come join the collective.Times Higher Education. 2012;:28
106. Nylenna M.,Riis P.,Karlsson Y.Multiple blind reviews of the same two manuscripts: Effects of referee characteristics and publication language.Journal of the American Medical Association. 1994;272:149-151
107. O’Brien L.,Lakeman R.,O’Brien A.Managing potential conflict of interest in journal article publication.International Journal of Mental Health Nursing. 2013;22:368-373
108. The market for scientific, technical and medical journals. London, England: Office of Fair Trading; 2002:
109. Oliver M.SPARC: And alternative lifestyle for academic libraries.Collection Management. 2000;25:37-49
110. Olivieri N.Patients’ health or company profits? The commercialisation of academic research.Science and Engineering Ethics. 2003;9:29-41
111. Online Ethics Center. (2010). Conflicts of interest bibliography. National Academy of Engineering. Retrieved from onlineethics.org/Resources/Bibliographies/ConflictsofInterestBiblio.aspx
112. Paul R.Measuring research quality: The United Kingdom government’s Research Assessment Exercise.European Journal of Information Systems. 2008;17:324-329
113. PearceF. (2010, February2). Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review?mobile-redirect=false
114. Perrow C.Publishing in the organizational sciences. Cummings L.Frost P., ed. London, England: Sage; 1985:203-215.
115. Pettigrew A.On studying organizational cultures.Administrative Science Quarterly. 1979;24:570-581
116. Podsakoff P.,MacKenzie S.,Podsakoff N.,Backrach D.Scholarly influence in the field of management: A bibliographic analysis of the determinants of university and author impact in the management literature of the past quarter century.Journal of Management. 2008;34:641-720
117. Price D.Ethics of scientific publication.Science. 1964;144:655-657
118. Raelin J.Refereeing the game of peer review.Academy of Management Learning & Education. 2008;7:124-129
119. Robergs R.A critical review of peer review: The need to scrutinize the “gatekeepers” of research in exercise physiology.Journal of Exercise Physiology. 2003;6 (2): i-xiii
120. Roberts T.,Shambrook J.Academic excellence: A commentary and reflections on the inherent value of peer review.Journal of Research Administration. 2012;43:33-38
121. Rothwell P.,Martyn C.Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?.Brain. 2000;123:1964-1969
122. The Life of Samuel Johnson LL.D. 1791;:
123. Scott AaronsonS.ArnoldD.AvilaA.BaezJ.BornemannF.CalegariD.. ZieglerG. (2011). The cost of knowledge. Retrieved from http://gowers.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/elsevierstatementfinal.pdf
124. Sense About Science. (2009). Peer review survey 2009. Retrieved from http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/peer-review-survey-2009.html
125. Simkin M.,Roychowdhury V.Read before you cite!.Complex Systems. 2003;14:269-274
126. Simkin M.,Roychowdhury V.Stochastic modelling of citation slips.Scientometrics. 2005;62:367-384
127. Smith R.Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2006;96:178-182
128. SmithR. (2010). Classical peer review: An empty gun. Breast Cancer Research, 12, S13. Retrieved from http://breast-cancer-research.com/content/12/S4/S13
129. SmithR. (2011). Richard Smith: A woeful tale of the uselessness of peer review. Retrieved from blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2011/11/11/
130. Spector P.When reviewers become authors: A comment on the journal review process.Research Methods Forum. 1998;3:1-4
131. Spier R.The history of the peer-review process.Trends in Biotechnology. 2002;20:357-358
132. Starbuck W.Turning lemons into lemonade: Where is the value in peer reviews?.Journal of Management Inquiry. 2003;12:344-351
133. Starbuck W.How much better are the most prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publishing.Organization Science. 2005;16:180-200
134. Stroebe W.,Postmes T.,Spears R.Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science.Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2012;7:670-688
135. Tahir T.Cleaning up the act.Times Higher Education. 2008;:30-35
136. Thurner S.,Hanel R.Peer review in a world of rational scientists: Towards selection of the average. Santa Fe, NM: Santa Fe Institute; 2010:
137. Tienari J.Academia as financial markets? Metaphoric reflections and possible responses.Scandinavian Journal of Management. 2012;28:250-256
138. TiplerF. (2003). Refereed journals: Do they ensure quality or enforce orthodoxy?ISCID Archive. Retrieved from http://www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_PeerReview_070103.pdf
139. Todd P.,Yeo D.,Li D.,Ladle R.Citing practices in ecology: Can we believe our own words?.Oikos. 2007;116:1599-1601
140. Triaridis S.,Kyrgidis A.Peer review and journal impact factor: The two pillars of contemporary medical publishing.Hippokratia. 2010;14:5-12
141. Tsang E.,Frey B.The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their own ideas.Academy of Management Learning & Education. 2007;6:128-136
142. van Teijlingen E.,Hundley V.Getting your paper to the right journal: A case study of an academic paper.Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2002;37:506-511
143. Walsh E.,Rooney M.,Appleby L.,Wilkinson G.Open peer review: A randomised trial.British Journal of Psychiatry. 2000;176:47-51
144. Ware M.,Monkman M.Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community—An international study. Bristol, UK: Mark Ware Consulting; 2008:
145. Waters L.Enemies of promise: Publishing, perishing, and the eclipse of scholarship. Chicago, IL: Prickly Paradigm Press; 2004:
146. Wenneras C.,Wold A.Nepotism and sexism in peer-review.Nature. 1997;387:341-343
147. Wetherall D.Problems for biomedical research at the academia-industrial interface.Science and Engineering Ethics. 2003;9:43-48
148. Wilhite A.,Fong E.Coercive citation in academic publishing.Science. 2012;335:542-543
149. Willmott H.Managing the academics: Commodification and control in the development of university education in the UK.Human Relations. 1995;48:993-1027
150. Willmott H.Journal list fetishism and the perversion of scholarship: Reactivity and the ABS list.Organization. 2011;18:429-442
151. WislarJ.FlanaginA.FontanarosaP.DeAngelisC. (2011). Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: A cross sectional survey. British Medical Journal, 343. Retrieved from europepmc.org/articles/PMC3202014
152. Zuckerman H.,Merton R.Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system.Minerva. 1971;9:66-100