Squeezing lemons to make fresh lemonade: How to extract useful value from peer reviews

How to get Published in the Best Management Journals

Volumn , Issue , 2016, Pages 85-104

  Starbuck, William H ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85018527898     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4337/9781784714680.00014     Document Type: Chapter

References (43)

1. Acharya A., A. Verstak, H. Suzuki, S. Henderson, M. Iakhiaev, C. Chiung, Y. Lin and N. Shetty (2014). Rise of the Rest: The Growing Impact of Non-elite Journals, Google Inc., 9 October 2014.
2. Baumeister R.E. (1990). ‘Dear journal editor, it’s me again: Sample cover letter for journal manuscript resubmissions,’ Dialogue, 5 (Fall), 16.
3. Bedeian A.G. (1996a). ‘Thoughts on the making and remaking of the management discipline,’ Journal of Management Inquiry, 5, 311-318.
4. Bedeian A.G. (1996b). ‘Improving the journal review process: The question of ghostwriting,’ American Psychologist, 51, 1189.
5. Bedeian A.G. (2008). ‘Balancing authorial voice and editorial omniscience: The “It’s my paper and I’ll say what I want to”/“Ghostwriters in the sky” minuet,’ in Y. Baruch, A. Konrad, H. Aguinis and W.H. Starbuck (eds.), Opening the Black Box of Editorship, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 134-142.
6. Bedeian A.G., S.G. Taylor and A.N. Miller (2010). ‘Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors,’ Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9, 715-725.
7. Bones A.K. (2012). ‘We knew the future all along: Scientific hypothesizing is much more accurate than other forms of precognition-a satire in one part,’ Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7 (3), 307-309.
8. Cicchetti D.V. (1991). ‘The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation,’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 119-186 (includes 33 pages of comments by others and a response by Cicchetti).
9. Davis G.F. (2014). ‘Editorial essay: Why do we still have journals?’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 59 (2), 193-201.
10. Davis M.S. (1971). ‘That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology,’ Philosophy of Social Science, 1, 309-344.
11. Eriksson K. (2012). ‘The nonsense math effect,’ Judgment and Decision Making, 7 (6), 746-749.
12. Forgues B. and S. Liarte (2014). ‘Academic publishing: Past and future,’ M@n@gement, 16 (5), 739-756.
13. Gans J.S. and G.B. Shepherd (1994). ‘How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles by leading economists,’ Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 165-179.
14. Gottfredson D.M. and S.D. Gottfredson (1982). ‘Criminal justice and (reviewer) behavior: How to get papers published,’ Criminal Justice and Behavior, 9 (3), 259-272.
15. Gottfredson S.D. (1977). ‘Scientific quality and peer-group consensus’ (Doctoral dissertation, Johns Hopkins University), Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 1950B (University Microfilms No. 77-19).
16. Gottfredson S.D. (1978). ‘Evaluating psychological research reports: Dimensions, reliability, and correlates of quality judgments,’ American Psychologist, 33 (10), 920-934.
17. Harnad S. (1986). ‘Policing the paper chase,’ Nature, 322, 24-25.
18. Holbrook M.B. (1986). ‘A note on sadomasochism in the review process: I hate when that happens,’ Journal of Marketing, 50 (July), 104-106.
19. Ioannidis J.P.A. (2005a). ‘Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research,’ JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 294 (2), 218-228.
20. Ioannidis J.P.A. (2005b). ‘Why most published research findings are false,’ PLoS Medicine, 2 (8), e124.
21. Kepes S. and M.A. McDaniel (2013). ‘How trustworthy is the scientific literature in industrial and organizational psychology?’ Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6 (3), 252-268.
22. Kuhn T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd edn.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23. Laband D.N. (1990). ‘Is there value-added from the review process in Economics? Preliminary evidence from authors,’ Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105, 341-352.
24. Laband D.N. and M.J. Piette (1994). ‘Favoritism versus search for good papers: Empirical evidence regarding the behavior of journal editors,’ Journal of Political Economy, 102, 194-203.
25. Liu L.A. (2014). ‘Addressing reviewer comments as an integrative negotiation,’ Management and Organization Review, 10 (2), 183-190.
26. Mahoney M.J. (1977). ‘Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system,’ Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 161-175.
27. Mahoney M.J. (1979). ‘Psychology of the scientist: An evaluative review,’ Social Studies of Science, 9 (3), 349-375.
28. Mahoney M.J., A.E. Kazdin and M. Kenigsberg (1978). ‘Getting published,’ Cognitive Therapy and Research, 2, 69-70.
29. Mazzola J.J. and J.K. Deuling (2013). ‘Forgetting what we learned as graduate students: HARKing and selective outcome reporting in I-O journal articles,’ Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6 (3), 279-284.
30. McBride M.F., F. Fidler and M.A. Burgman (2012). ‘Evaluating the accuracy and calibration of expert predictions under uncertainty: Predicting the outcomes of ecological research,’ Diversity and Distributions, 18, 782-794.
31. Medoff M.H. (2003). ‘Editorial favoritism in economics?’ Southern Economic Journal, 70, 425-434.
32. Nylenna M., P. Riis and Y. Karlsson (1994). ‘Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts: Effects of referee characteristics and publication language,’ JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 272, 149-151.
33. Osterloh M. and B.S. Frey (2015). ‘Ranking games,’ Evaluation Review, 39 (1), 102-129.
34. Peters D.P. and S.J. Ceci (1982). ‘Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again,’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 187-255 (includes 50 pages of comments by others and a response by Peters and Ceci).
35. Silera K., K. Leeb and L. Beroc (2015). ‘Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping,’ PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences), 112 (2), 360-365.
36. Simmons J.P., L.D. Nelson and U. Simonsohn (2011). ‘False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant,’ Psychological Science, 22 (11), 1359-1366.
37. Starbuck W.H. (2003). ‘Turning lemons into lemonade: Where is the value in peer reviews?’ Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 344-351.
38. Starbuck W.H. (2005). ‘How much better are the most prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication,’ Organization Science, 16, 180-200.
39. Starbuck W.H. (2009). ‘The constant causes of never-ending faddishness in the behavioral and social sciences,’ Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25 (1), 108-116.
40. Starbuck W.H. (2014). ‘Why and where do academics publish?’ M@n@gement, 16 (5), 707-718.
41. Starbuck W.H., H. Aguinis, A.M. Konrad and Y. Baruch (2008). ‘Tradeoffs among editorial goals in complex publishing environments,’ in Y. Baruch, A. Konrad, H. Aguinis and W.H. Starbuck (eds.), Opening the Black Box of Editorship, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan pp. 250-270.
42. Webster J. and W.H. Starbuck (1988). ‘Theory building in industrial and organizational psychology,’ in C.L. Cooper and I. Robertson (eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 1988, Chichester: Wiley, pp. 93-138.
43. Wolff W.M. (1970). ‘A study of criteria for journal manuscripts,’ American Psychologist, 25, 636-639.