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/
-----Original Message-----
From: Business Policy and Strategy List [mailto:
BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Park, Jason Whan
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 3:43 AM
To:
BPS-NET@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Request for relevant literature
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
Jason W. Park, PhD
City University of Hong Kong