Misconduct, Marginality and Editorial Practices in Management, Business and Economics Journals

PLoS ONE

Volumn 11, Issue 7, 2016, Pages

  Karabag, Solmaz Filiz ^a   Berggren, Christian ^a  

^a LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA BASE; ECONOMICS; EDITOR; FREQUENCY ANALYSIS; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MISCONDUCT; PUBLICATION; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; SOCIOLOGY; VISION; WORKLOAD; FACTUAL DATABASE; META ANALYSIS; PUBLISHING; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; STANDARDS;

DATABASES, FACTUAL; HUMANS; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING; RETRACTION OF PUBLICATION AS TOPIC; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84982705925     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159492     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Furman J L., Jensen K. and Murray F. Governing knowledge in the scientific community: Exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine, Research Policy. 2012; 41:276-290.
2. Grieneisen M. L. and Zhang M.A. Comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature, PLOS ONE. 2012; 7:1-22. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044118
3. Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data, PLOS ONE. 2009. 4 5, e5738. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 PMID: 19478950
4. McCabe D.L., Butterfield K.D., and Trevino L.K. Academic dishonesty in graduate business programs: Prevalence, causes, and proposed action. Academy of Management Learning & Education. 2006; 5 (3):294-305.
5. Arnold I.J. Cheating at online formative tests: Does it pay off?. The Internet and Higher Education. 2016; 29:98-106.
6. Enders W. and Hoover G.A. Whose line is it? Plagiarism in economics, Journal of Economic Literature. 2004; 42:487-493.
7. Marusic A., Katavic V., and Marusic M. Role of editors and journals in detecting and preventing scientific misconduct: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, Medicine and Law. 2007; 26 (3):545-566. PMID: 17970252
8. Bedeian A. G., Taylor S. G. and Miller A.N. Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors, Academy of Management Learning & Education. 2010; 9:715-725.
9. Honig B. and Bedi A. The fox in the hen house: A critical examination of plagiarism among members of the Academy of Management. Academy of Management Learning & Education. 2012; 11:101-123.
10. Necker S. Scientific misbehavior in economics, Research Policy. 2014; 43:1747-1759.
11. Alvesson M. and Sandberg J. Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research, Journal of Management Studies. 2013; 50:128-152.
12. Tourish D. Leading questions: journal rankings, academic freedom and performativity: What is, or should be, the future of Leadership, Leadership. 2011; 7:367-81.
13. Clark T. and Wright M. So, farewell then. Reflections on editing the Journal of Management Studies, Journal of Management Studies. 2009; 46:1-9.
14. Wager E., Fiack S., Graf C., Robinson A., and Rowlands I. Science journal editors' views on publication ethics: results of an international survey, Journal of Medical Ethics. 2009; 35: 348-353. doi: 10.1136/ jme.2008.028324 PMID: 19482976
15. Engwall L. On the quality of quality assessments. In Blockman W., Engwall L. and Weaire D. (Eds) Bibliometrics: Use and Abuse in the Review of Research Performance, London: Portland Press; 2014. p.95-106.
16. Bedeian A. G. The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors, Journal of Management Inquiry. 2003; 12(4):331-338.
17. Merton R. K. Science and the Social Order. Philosophy of Science, 1938; 5:321-337. Reprint in Merton, R. K. (eds) Social Theory and Social Structure, New York:The Free press. 1968. p.591-693.
18. Merton R.K. The normative structure of science, in Merton R.K. and Storer N.W. 1942 The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1973. p.267-278.
19. Banks G.C., O'Boyle E.H., Pollack J.M., White C.D., Batchelor J.H., Whelpley C.E., Abston K.A., Bennett A.A., Adkins C.L. Questions About Questionable Research Practices in the Field of Management A Guest Commentary. Journal of Management. 2016; 42(1):5-20.
20. OSTP. Federal research misconduct policy. The Science and Technology Policy of USA. 2000; 65 (235):76260-76264.
21. Financial Times, 45 journals used in FT research rank. Financial Times, 2012. Available: http://www.ft. com/cms/s/2/3405a512-5cbb-11e1-8f1f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3pET3Wqby
22. Harzing A.W. Journal quality list by title 52nd Ed. 2014. Available: http://www.harzing.com/download/ jql-journal.pdf accessed 11 July 2014.
23. Steen R.G. Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics. 2011; 37: 249-253 doi: 10.1136/jme.2010.040923 PMID: 21186208
24. Azoulay P., Furman J., Krieger J., and Murray F. Retractions, Review of Economics and Statistics, 2014. doi: 10.1162/REST-a-00469 Available: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/ REST-a-00469
25. Lu S F, Jin G,Z, Uzzi B and Jones B. The retraction penalty: evidence from the Web of Science, Scientific reports. 2013; 3: 3146. Available: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep03146?message-global= remove doi: 10.1038/srep03146 PMID: 24192909
26. Williams P, Wager E. Exploring Why and how journal editors retract articles: Findings from a qualitative study. Science Engineering Ethics. 2013: 19:1-11. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9292-0 PMID: 21761244
27. Easley R.W., Madden C.S. and Gray V. A tale of two cultures: Revisiting journal editors? views of replication research, Journal of Business Research. 2013; 66: 1457-1459.
28. Schmidt S. Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences, Review of General Psychology. 2009; 13: 90-100.
29. Callaham M. L. Journal policy on ethics in scientific publication, Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2003; 41: 82-89. PMID: 12514687
30. Strange K. Authorship: why not just toss a coin?. American Journal of Physiology Cell Physiology, 2008. 295: C567-C575. doi: 10.1152/ajpcell.00208.2008 PMID: 18776156
31. Etkin A. A new method and metric to evaluate the peer review process of scholarly journals, Publishing Research Quarterly. 2013; 30:23-38
32. Birukou A., Wakeling J. R., Bartolini C., Casati F., Marchese M., Mirylenka K., et al. Alternatives to peer review: novel approaches for research evaluation, Frontiers in computational neuroscience. 2011; 5: 1-12.
33. Field A, Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics ( 4th Edition). London: Sage Publication; 2014.
34. APA, Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association ( 6th Edition. Washington, DC American Psychological Association Publication. 2009.
35. Kotrlik J W, Williams H A, Jabor M K, Reporting and interpreting effect size in quantitative agricultural education research, Journal of Agricultural Education, 2011: 52(1):132-142.
36. Dumay J, Cai L. Using content analysis as a research methodology for investigating intellectual capital disclosure: a critique. Journal of Intellectual Capital. 2015, 16(1):121-155.
37. Auerbach CF, Silverstein LB. Qualitative data: an introduction to coding and analysis. New York: New York University Press; 2003.
38. Flick U. Mapping the field. In: Flick U. (Ed) The SAGE Handbook of qualitative data analysis. London: Sage Publications, 2014. p.3-18.
39. Walker WR, Skowronski J, Gibbons J, Vogl R, Thompson C. On the emotions that accompany autobiographical memories: Dysphoria disrupts the fading affect bias. Cognition & Emotion. 2003; 17(5):703-723.
40. Arnold HJ, Feldman DC. Social desirability response bias in self-report choice situations. Academy of Management Journal. 1981; 24(2):377-85.
41. Podsakoff PM, Organ DW. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of management. 1986; 12(4):531-44.
42. Wall TD, Michie J, Patterson M, Wood SJ, Sheehan M, Clegg CW, West M. On the validity of subjective measures of company performance. Personnel psychology. 2004; 57(1):95-118.
43. Mayring P, Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2000: 1(2):1-7.
44. Levelt, Noort, and Drenth Committees. Flawed science, The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel. Netherlands, 28 November 2012. Available: https://www. commissielevelt.nl/
45. Hubbard R. and Vetter D. E. An empirical comparison of published replication research in accounting, economics, finance, management, and marketing, Journal of Business Research. 1996; 35: 153-164.
46. Duvendack M., Palmer-Jones R. W., and Reed W. R. Replications in Economics: A Progress Report, Scholarly Comments on Academic Economics. Research in Practice 2015; 12(2): 164-191.
47. Kurtzberg TR. Feeling creative, being creative: An empirical study of diversity and creativity in teams. Creativity Research Journal. 2005; 17(1):51-65.
48. Shin SJ, Kim TY, Lee JY, Bian L. Cognitive team diversity and individual team member creativity: A cross-level interaction. Academy of Management Journal. 2012; 55(1):197-212.
49. Lewis B.R, Jonathan E.D. and Beets D.S. An Academic Publisher?s Response to Plagiarism, Journal of Business Ethics. 2011; 102:489-506.
50. Resnik D.B. and Dinse G.E. Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings, Journal of Medical Ethics. 2013; 39: 46-50. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2012-100766 PMID: 22942373
51. Karabag S. F, Berggren C. Retraction, dishonesty and plagiarism: analysis of a crucial issue for academic publishing, and the inadequate responses from leading journals in economics and management disciplines. Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research. 2012; 2:172-83.
52. Fanelli D. Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLOS Medicine. 2013. 10,12, e1001563, p1-6. Available: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563 doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563 PMID: 24311988
53. Bradford L., Barham B. L., Foltz J. D. and Prager D. L. Making time for science, Research Policy. 2014; 43(1):21-31.
54. Kacmar M. and Whitfield M. An Additional Rating Method for Journal Articles in the Field of Management, Organizational Research Methods. 2000; 3:392-406.
55. Reinhart C. M. and Rogoff K.S. Growth in a Time of Debt, American Economic Review. 2010; 100: 573-578.
56. Herndon T., Ash M. and Pollin R. Does high public debt consistently stifle economic growth? A critique of Reinhart and Rogoff, Cambridge Journal of Economics. 2014; 38:257-279.
57. Lepore J. The disruption machine, The New Yorker. 2014 June 23. Available: http://www.newyorker. com/magazine/2014/06/23/the-disruption-machine.
58. Christensen C. M. The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great girms to fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 1997.
59. Bergek A., Berggren C., Magnusson T. and Hobday M. Technological discontinuities and the challenge for incumbent firms: Destruction, disruption or creative accumulation? Research Policy. 2013; 42:1210-1224.
60. DiMaggio PJ, Powell W, The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review. 1983: 48:147-60.
61. Bosch X., Hernánde C., Pericas J. M., Doti P., & Marušć A. Misconduct policies in high- impact biomedical journals, PLOS ONE. 2012. Available: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal. pone.0051928
62. Gendron Y. Constituting the academic performer: the spectre of superficiality and stagnation in academia. European Accounting Review. 2008; 17(1): 97-127.
63. Knights D. and Clarke C. A. It's a Bittersweet Symphony, this Life: Fragile Academic Selves and Insecure Identities at Work, Organization Studies. 2014; 35:335-357.
64. Ter Bogt H. J. and Scapens R. W. Performance management in universities: effects of the transition to more quantitative measurement systems, European Accounting Review. 2012; 21:451-497.
65. Davis G F. Why do we still have journals? Administrative Science Quarterly. 2014; 59: 193-201.