Looking for good research in management – a publisher's case study

Management Decision

Volumn 39, Issue 7, 2001, Pages 594-598

  Peters, John ^a   Howard, Keith ^a  

^a Emerald   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Philosophy; Publishing; Research; Research methodology

Indexed keywords

EID: 84986145264     PISSN: 00251747     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/EUM0000000005804     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. Bengtsson, L., Elg, U. and Lind, J.-I. (1997), “Bridging the transatlantic publishing gap: how North American reviewers evaluate European ideographic research”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 473-92
2. Burns, R.B. (2000), Introduction to Research Methods, Sage, London.
3. Day-Peters, A. (2000), “Teasing out meaning: an empirical investigation of what is good research”, unpublished MA assignment, Lancaster University.
4. Micklethwait, J. and Wooldridge, A. (1996), The Witchdoctors, Times Business Books, New York, NY.
5. Prasad, S., Babbar, S. and Calis, A. (2000), “International operations management and operations management research: a comparative analysis”, Omega, The International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 28, pp. 97-110.
6. Piercy, N. (2000), “Commentary: why it is fundamentally stupid for a business school to try to improve its research assessment exercise score”, European Journal of Marketing; Vol. 34 No. 1/2, pp. 27-35.
7. Research Assessment Exercise (1999a) Circular 2/99, Guidance on Submissions, http://www.niss.ac.uk/education/hefc/rae2001/2_99.html Section 1.12, 13 May.
8. Research Assessment Exercise Circular (1999b) 5/99, Assessment panels’ criteria and working methods, http://www.rae.ac.uk/Pubs/5_99/section2.htm 22 December.