Abstract
As its title indicates, the purpose of the present volume is to “open the black box of editorship.” My concerns about the integrity of the manuscript-review process as practiced by the management discipline’s leading journals are well documented. These concerns, as they relate to the review process as a means for judging the quality and, thus, the credibility of scientific papers submitted for publication have addressed the social construction of knowledge (Bedeian, 2004); the proper roles of editors, referees, and authors (Bedeian, 2003); and ghostwriting by editors and referees (Bedeian, 1996a & b). In the remarks that follow, I will briefly summarize a few of these concerns and extend my previous thoughts by commenting on reservations I have about how the review process has evolved over the past fifteen or so years and how it may be improved.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bedeian, A. G. (1989, October). Totems and taboos: Undercurrents in the management discipline. (Presidential Address.) Academy o fManagementNewsletter, 19, 1–6. Retrieved January 12, 2007, from http://www.bus.lsu.edu/management/faculty/abedeian/articles/Tottems&Taboos-AOM%20News-1999.pdf
Bedeian, A. G. (1996a). Improving the journal review process: The question of ghostwriting. American Psychologist, 51, 1189.
Bedeian, A. G. (1996b). Thoughts on making and remaking the management discipline. Journal of Management Inquiry, 5, 311–18.
Bedeian, A. G. (1997). Of fiction and fraud. Academy of Management Review, 22, 840–2.
Bedeian, A. G. (2003). The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 331–8.
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.
Bedeian, A. G., Van Fleet, D. D., & Hyman, H. H., III (2007). Scientific achievement and editorial-board membership. In press, at Organizational Research Methods.
Beebe, J. (2006). Editing as a psychological practice. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 51, 329–56.
Belcher, W. (2006a). On journal rejection. Flourish: An electronic journal for scholarly writers, 2 (4). Retrieved January 5, 2007, from http://www.wendybelcher.com/pages/FlourishNewsletter.html
Belcher, W. (2006b). On research on peer review. Flourish: An electronic journal for scholarly writers 2 (7).Retrieved January 5, 2007, from http://www.wendybelcher.com/pages/FlourishNewsletter.html
Biagioli, M. (2002). From book censorship to academic peer review. Emergences, 12, 11–45.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences ( 3rd ed. ). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Daft, R. L. (1983). Learning the craft of organizational research. Academy o fManagement Review, 8, 539–46.
Daniel, H. -D. (1993). Guardians of science: Fairness and reliability of peer review. (W. E. Russey, Trans.). Weinheim, Germany: VCH Verlagsgesellschaft.
De Rond, M., & Miller, A. N. (2005). Publish or perish: bane or boon of academic life? Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 321–9.
Ellison, G. (2002). The slowdown in the economics publishing process. Journal of Political Economy, 110, 947–93.
Feldman, D. C. (2005). Conversing with editors: Strategies for authors and reviewers. Journal of Management, 31, 649–58.
Freeman, R. E. (2005). The development of stakeholder theory: An idiosyncratic approach. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development (pp. 417–35 ). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frey, B. S. (2003). Publishing as prostitution? - Choosing between one’s own ideas and academic success. Public Choice, 116, 205–23.
Miner, J. B. (2003). Commentary on Arthur Bedeian’s “the manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors.” Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 339–43.
Nifadkar, S. S., & Tsui, A. (2007). [Review of the book Great minds in management: The process of theory development]. Academy of Management Review 32,298–303.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shepherd, G. B. (Ed.). (1995). Rejected: Leading economists ponder the publication process. Sun Lakes, AZ: Thomas Horton and Daughters.
Starbuck, W. H. (2003). Turning lemons into lemonade: Where is the value in peer review? Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 344–51.
Starbuck, W. H. (2005). How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science, 16, 180–200.
Starbuck, W. H. (2006). Organizational realities: Studies of strategizing and organizing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses. Medford, NJ: American Society for Information Science and Technology.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2008 Arthur G. Bedeian
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bedeian, A.G. (2008). Balancing Authorial Voice and Editorial Omniscience: The “It’s My Paper and I’ll Say What I Want To” versus “Ghostwriters in the Sky” Minuet. In: Baruch, Y., Konrad, A.M., Aguinis, H., Starbuck, W.H. (eds) Opening the Black Box of Editorship. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230582590_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230582590_14
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-28490-0
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-58259-0
eBook Packages: Palgrave Business & Management CollectionBusiness and Management (R0)