Epilogue: Trade-offs among editorial goals in complex publishing environments

Opening the Black Box of Editorship

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 250-270

  Starbuck, William H ^a,b   Aguinis, Herman ^c   Konrad, Alison M ^d   Baruch, Yehuda ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c University of Colorado Denver (UCD)   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84964912558     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1057/9780230582590     Document Type: Chapter

References (40)

1. Aguinis, H. (2007). Performance Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
2. Armstrong, J. S. (2007). Significance tests harm progress in forecasting. International Journal of Forecasting, 23, 321-7.
3. Bedeian, A. G. (1996). Improving the journal review process: The question of ghostwriting. American Psychologist, 51, 1189.
4. Bedeian, A. G. (2003). The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 331-8.
5. 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.
6. Bedeian, A. G., Van Fleet, D. D., & Hyman, H. H. (2007). Scientific achievement and editorial-board membership. Organizational Research Methods.
7. Cascio, W. F. (2008). How editors are selected. In Y. Baruch, A. M. Konrad, H. Aguinis, and W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship. Basingstoke, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
8. Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2005). Test development and use: New twists on old questions. Human Resource Management, 44, 219-35.
9. Cumming, G., Fidler, F., Leonard, M., Kalinowski, P., Christiansen, A., Kleinig, A., Lo, J., McMenamin, N. & Wilson, S. (2007). Statistical reform in psychology: Is anything changing? Psychological Science, 18, 230-2.
10. Ellison, G. (2002). The slowdown of the economics publishing process. Journal of Political Economy, 110, 947-93.
11. Falk, R. & Greenbaum, C. W. (1995). Significance tests die hard: The amazing persistence of a probabilistic misconception. Theory & Psychology, 5, 75-98.
12. Fidler, F., Cumming, G., Burgman, M., & Thomason, N. (2004). Statistical reform in medicine, psychology and ecology. Journal of Socio-Economics, 33, 615-30.
13. Fidler, F., Cumming, G., Thomason, N., Pannuzzo, D., Smith, J., Fyffe, P., Edmonds, H., Harrington, C., & Schmitt, R. (2005). Evaluating the effectiveness of editorial policy to improve statistical practice: The case of the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 136-43.
14. Gans, J. S. & Shepherd, G.B. (1994). How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles by leading economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 165-79.
15. Gottfredson, S. D. (1978). Evaluating psychological research reports: Dimensions, reliability, and correlates of quality judgments. American Psychologist, 33 (10), 920-34.
16. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
17. ISI rankings (2007). Reports on Impact Factor for the year 2006. Retrieved from http://www.annualreviews.org/catalog/isi-rankings.aspx on September 26, 2007.
18. Jacobs, J. A. (2008). The case for an activist editorial model. In Y. Baruch, A. M. Konrad, H. Aguinis, & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship. Basingstoke, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
19. Konrad, A. M. (2008). Knowledge creation and the journal editor's role. In Y. Baruch, A. M. Konrad, H. Aguinis, & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship. Basingstoke, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
20. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21. Laband, D. N. (1990). Is there value-added from the review process in Economics? Preliminary evidence from authors. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105, 341-52.
22. Laband, D. N. & Piette, M. J. (1994). Favoritism versus search for good papers: Empirical evidence regarding the behavior of journal editors. The Journal of Political Economy, 102, 194-203.
23. Leahey, E. (2005). Alphas and asterisks: The development of statistical significance testing standards in sociology. Social Forces, 84, 1-24.
24. Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 161-75.
25. Mahoney, M. J. (1979). Psychology of the scientist: An evaluative review. Social Studies of Science, 9(3), 349-75.
26. Martinko, M. J., Campbell, C. R. & Douglas, S. C. (2000). Bias in the social science publication process: Are there exceptions? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 1-18.
27. Medoff, M. H. (2003). Editorial favoritism in Economics? Southern Economic Journal, 70, 425-34.
28. Meindl, J. R. & Ehrlich, S. B. (1987). The romance of leadership and the evaluation of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 91-109.
29. Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78-102.
30. Miller, J. & Perrucci, R. (2001). Back stage at "Social Problems": An analysis of the editorial decision process, 1993-1996. Social Problems, 48, 93-110.
31. 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, 187-255 (page range includes 50 pages of comments by others and a response by Peters & Ceci).
32. Sherrell, D. L.; Hair, J. F., Jr.; & Griffin, M. (1989). Marketing academicians' perceptions of ethical research and publishing behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 17, 315-24.
33. Starbuck, W. H. (2003). Turning lemons into lemonade: Where is the value in peer reviews? Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 344-51.
34. Starbuck, W. H. (2005). How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science, 16, 180-200.
35. Starbuck, W. H. (2006a). Preface: Realistic perspectives on organizing and strategizing. In Organizational realities: Studies of strategizing and organizing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36. Starbuck, W. H. (2006b). The production of knowledge: The challenge of social science research. New York: Oxford University Press.
37. Thompson, B. (2007). Various editorial policies regarding statistical significance tests and effect sizes. Retrieved from http://www.coe.tamu.edu/~bthompson/journals.htm on September 26, 2007.
38. Tushman, M. & Romanelli, E. (1994). Organization transformation as punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 1141-66.
39. Wagner, J. A. III & Gooding, R. Z. (1997). Equivocal information and attribution: An investigation of patterns of managerial sensemaking. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 275-86.
40. Webster, E. J., & Starbuck, W. H. (1988). Theory building in industrial and organizational psychology. In C. L. Cooper and I. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 93-138. London: Wiley.