Discussion: View Thread

Expand all | Collapse all

Collated list of responses for relevant literature

  • 1.  Collated list of responses for relevant literature

    Posted 01-31-2011 13:25
    Dear BPS Colleagues:

    After waiting over a week, I have now collected all the responses to my request for literature regarding published opinions on the manuscript review process from the perspective of the submitting author. The collated list is reproduced below, in chronological order, with the most recent response at the top, descending and ending with my original email blast at the bottom. I make no proprietary claim to this information and provide it freely.

    I would like to take this opportunity to thank those who kindly contributed their responses, all of which were enriching and relevant. I would also like to thank the BPS listserv moderators for making this forum available. All of you are evidence that the enterprise is still indeed worthwhile.

    Best wishes,
    Jason W. Park, PhD
    City University of Hong Kong
    ________________________________________
    From: Johnson, Scott [scott.g.johnson@okstate.edu]
    Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 12:59 PM
    To: Park, Jason Whan
    Subject: RE: Responses to request for relevant literature

    Thanks, Jason. Could you submit the collated list to BPS with a short note and I'll approve it for distribution to the whole list.

    Scott Johnson
    Asst. Professor
    Oklahoma State University
    405-744-5107
    324 Business Building
    Stillwater, OK 74078
    ________________________________________
    From: Park, Jason Whan [jpark@katz.pitt.edu]
    Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 11:32 AM
    To: Johnson, Scott
    Subject: Responses to request for relevant literature

    Dear Dr. Johnson:

    After waiting for over a week, I have collected all the responses to my request for literature regarding the article review process from the author's perspective. Per your request, I provide a chronological list of responses, from the most recent at the top on down to my original email blast, for your review at your leisure.

    Please feel free to distribute this collated list to the BPS listserv at your convenience. Indeed, one individual has asked me for the list already.

    Thank you for your kind consideration in this regard, and I look forward to hearing from you in the future.

    Sincerely,
    Jason Park, PhD
    City University of Hong Kong

    ________________________________________
    From: sfairclo@ualberta.ca [sfairclo@ualberta.ca]
    Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 7:04 PM
    To: Park, Jason Whan
    Subject: Re: Request for relevant literature

    Hi Jason
    I reviewed this article a few months ago. It considers some of the
    issues you are interested in:


    Organization Studies 2010 31: 757
    Yiannis Gabriel
    Organization Studies: A Space for Ideas, Identities and Agonies

    Best wishes,
    Samantha Fairclough

    Deloitte & Touche Post-Doctoral Fellow, University of Alberta
    Associate Post-Doctoral Fellow, Said Business School, University of Oxford
    Visiting Lecturer, UC Davis Graduate School of Management


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Don Bergh [mailto:dbergh@du.edu]
    Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:05 PM
    To: Business Policy and Strategy List
    Subject: RE: Request for relevant literature

    Dear Jason,

    The Academy of Management Journal website has several sources that may be helpful, including insights for both the author and reviewer side of the review process.

    Author Resources - Includes articles on how to make a contribution, on the review process, and on journal trends, along with specific topics like publishing laboratory studies and qualitative research in the journal. Action editors include a link to this page in desk decision letters and rejection letters.

    http://journals.aomonline.org/amj/author-resources

    Reviewer Resources - Includes guidelines for writing reviews and sample reviews written by the current editorial team. Also includes a discussion of the criteria for earning an invitation to the editorial review board. A link to this page is included in the confirmation email triggered by the acceptance of a review request.

    http://journals.aomonline.org/amj/reviewer-resources

    Best regards,
    Don Bergh

    ________________________________________
    From: Steve Gove, Virginia Tech [Steve.Gove@VT.EDU]
    Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 9:43 AM
    To: BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Cc: Steve Gove
    Subject: RE: Request for relevant literature

    Jason -

    Aren't all editors in management journals authors? Specifically from the
    author/contributor's perspective, you might find the following useful.
    I've used both with my PhD students:

    Holbrook (1986). A note on sadomasochism in the review process. Journal of
    Marketing, 104-108.

    Ketchen, D. J. (2002). Some candid thoughts on the publication process.
    Journal of Management, 28, 585-590.

    Steve


    ________________________________________
    From: Donald Nordberg [D.Nordberg@westminster.ac.uk]
    Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 3:01 AM
    To: Business Policy and Strategy List
    Subject: RE: Request for relevant literature

    These might also help:

    Bedeian, A. G. (2004). Peer Review and the Social Construction of Knowledge in the Management Discipline. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(2), 198-216

    Adler, N. J., & Harzing, A.-W. (2009). When Knowledge Wins: Transcending the Sense and Nonsense of Academic Rankings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1), 72-95

    Taylor, J. (2010). The Assessment of Research Quality in UK Universities: Peer Review or Metrics? British Journal of Management, OnlineFirst.

    Bedeian, A. G. (2003). The Manuscript Review Process. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(4), 331-338

    Starbuck, W. H. (2003). Turning Lemons into Lemonade. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(4), 344-351




    Donald Nordberg
    Senior Lecturer in Strategy
    d.nordberg@westminster.ac.uk

    Westminster Business School
    University of Westminster
    35 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5LS, United Kingdom

    Corporate Governance: Principles and Issues, London: Sage Publications

    Research papers: http://ssrn.com/author=475919


    ________________________________
    From: Business Policy and Strategy List [BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jim Goes [jim@CYBERNOS.COM]
    Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 1:28 PM
    To: BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Request for relevant literature


    Jason, you might check out Cummings & Frost, Publishing in the Organizational Sciences, 1995 (Sage). I seem to recall there is a nice discussion in there of the long process of getting an article published, through multiple reviews, from the perspectives of both editor and author.



    http://www.amazon.com/Publishing-Organizational-Sciences-Foundations-Science/dp/0803971451


    -------------------------------------------------------
    Jim Goes
    Cybernos, LLC
    • 541.767.9759 Pacific TZ
    • jim@cybernos.com<mailto:jim@cybernos.com>



    -----Original Message-----
    From: Business Policy and Strategy List [mailto:BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jon O'Brien
    Sent: 23 January 2011 02:44
    To: BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Request for relevant literature

    Jason,

    Not sure if this is quite what you're looking for, but you may find it
    useful.

    Bedeian, A. G. 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, England: Palgrave
    Macmillan, 2008, pp. 134-142.

    Available at his website:
    http://www.bus.lsu.edu/bedeian/resume-page2.asp#ARTICLES:


    Cheers,
    Jon O'Brien


    ________________________________________
    From: Business Policy and Strategy List [BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Azar@som.bgu.ac.il [Azar@SOM.BGU.AC.IL]
    Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 1:24 AM
    To: BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Request for relevant literature

    Dear Jason,

    I am not sure if that's what you are looking for, but I have several papers on the academic review process in economics, which I believe shares a lot with the review process in management. I think these papers fall into your category of "critiques of the scholarly manuscript review process that considers the concerns of manuscript submitters." I will be happy to provide the full text of any paper you are interested in.

    Azar, Ofer H. (2004), "Rejections and the Importance of First Response Times," International Journal of Social Economics, 31(3), 259-274.

    Azar, Ofer H. (2005), "The Review Process in Economics: Is It Too Fast?" Southern Economic Journal, 72(2), 482-491.

    Azar, Ofer H. (2006), "The Academic Review Process: How Can We Make it More Efficient?" American Economist, 50(1), 37-50.

    Azar, Ofer H. (2007), "The Slowdown in First-Response Times of Economics Journals: Can it Be Beneficial?" Economic Inquiry, 45(1), 179-187.

    Azar, Ofer H. (2008), "Evolution of Social Norms with Heterogeneous Preferences: A General Model and an Application to the Academic Review Process," Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 65(3-4), 420-435.

    Bruno Frey also wrote several articles that might interest you such as "The As-Is Journal Review Process: Let Authors Own Their Ideas," "Publishing as prostitution? – Choosing between one’s own ideas and academic success" and a few others; you can check out the list of his articles on http://www.bsfrey.ch/articles.html#h and download his articles there.

    All the best,

    Ofer

    Ofer H. Azar, Ph.D.
    Head of the Multidisciplinary Specialty and Teaching Committee Chairperson, Department of Business Administration, Guilford Glazer Faculty of Business and Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Associate Editor, Journal of Economic Psychology Chairperson of the Executive Committee, ICABEEP - The International Confederation for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics and Economic Psychology President-Elect, SABE - Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics
    E-mail: azar@som.bgu.ac.il
    Personal website: http://www.oferazar.com/

    ______________________________________________________
    ________________________________
    From: Mcnamara, Gerry [mcnamara@bus.msu.edu]
    Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:08 PM
    To: Park, Jason Whan
    Subject: review process question

    Jason,

    In response to the question you posted on the BPS Net, there have been a number of FTEs in AMJ on the responsibility of reviewers and editors. You can see them listed under the On the Review Process heading on the following website http://journals.aomonline.org/amj/author-resources.

    Best wishes,

    Gerry



    ________________________________________
    From: Timothy Devinney [timothy.devinney@gmail.com]
    Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 9:51 PM
    To: Park, Jason Whan
    Subject: Re: Request for relevant literature

    Jason ... I remember that a number of years back (It may have been many years) both the American Economic Association and The American Psychological Assn did some examinations of the double versus single blind review process. It has been a long time since I looked back on that but you will definitely find this somewhere if you search. It is also possible that Informs has something on this because I remember Gary Lilien (who was the editor of Management Science) mentioning something to me.

    The AEA sent out papers using both processes and found that double blinding did not really matter all that much. The APA study (which was quite old) sent out papers that had already been accepted but hand not appeared back out for review. They discovered that the papers were rejected at the base rate by reviewers!

    I hope all is well otherwise.

    Tim

    Prof. Timothy Devinney

    UTS (office): +61 2 9514 3540

    Global Numbers: +61 2 8006 0048 or +1 412 5677440 (if in USA)

    Other Numbers:
    Australia (Mob): +61 412 276 467
    USA (Mob): +1 (847) 207 3202
    Germany (Mob): +49 (151) 5316 7974
    China (Mob): +86 (136) 5116 1087

    Email: Timothy.Devinney@uts.edu.au

    Web 1 (Academic, UTS): http://datasearch.uts.edu.au/business/staff/marketing/details.cfm?StaffId=4213
    Web 2 (SSRN Papers): http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=283089
    Web 2 (China Related): http://vincitveritas.spaces.live.com/

    Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tdevinney/


    On 23/01/2011, at 1:33 PM, Park, Jason Whan wrote:

    > Dear BPS colleagues:
    >
    > Happy belated New Year. Many happy returns of the day. Hope this email finds you all well.
    >
    > I was wondering if anybody on the listserv could help me find literature (journal articles, book chapters, etc.) on recent reviews of the double-blind peer review process, preferably in management, from the author's or contributor's perspective. In other words, are there critiques of the scholarly manuscript review process that considers the concerns of manuscript submitters?
    >
    > The reason for my asking is that I see many "From the Editors" pieces in the beginning of journals that do a great job of helping aspiring and published authors write better manuscripts. However, I do not recall seeing as large a complementary literature by authors or contributors discussing what makes a good review(er). My hunch is that this is a popular but largely unvoiced concern.
    >
    > Two published articles that do come to mind is Karl Weick's 1995 piece in Administrative Science Quarterly entitled "What theory is not, theorizing is," or Paul DiMaggio's "Comments on 'What theory is not,'" also in ASQ in 1995 In one of the two articles, the author responds to Robert Sutton and Barry Staw's "What theory is not" by asking journal editors and reviewers to be more forgiving of manuscripts that have very original and creative ideas but are not as well-developed stylistically compared to other, less intellectually ambitious but more stylistically accomplished pieces.
    >
    > Thank you for your kind consideration in this regard, and I look forward to hearing from you in the future.
    >
    > Sincerely,
    > Jason W. Park, PhD
    > City University of Hong Kong