Skip main navigation
From the Editor

Peer Review, Root Canals, and Other Amazing Life Events

    Published Online:22 Jul 2015https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2015.0039
    Free first page

    REFERENCES

    • Amabile T. M. 1983. Brilliant but cruel: Perceptions of negative evaluators. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19: 146–156. Google Scholar
    • Bedeian A. G. 2003. The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12: 331–338. Google Scholar
    • Bedeian A. G. 2004. Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3: 198–216.Link , Google Scholar
    • Beyer J. M. 1996. Becoming a journal editor. In P. J. FrostM. S. Taylor (Eds.), Rhythms of Academic Life: Personal Accounts of Careers in Academia: 287–297. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
    • Clair J. A. 2015. Toward a bill of rights for manuscript submitters. Academy of Learning and Education, forthcoming. Google Scholar
    • Davis G.F. 2014. Why do we still have journals? Administrative Science Quarterly, 59: 193–201. Google Scholar
    • Glenn N. D. 1976. The journal article review process: Some proposals for change. American Sociologist, 11: 179–185. Google Scholar
    • Glenn N. D. 1982. The journal article review process as a game of chance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5: 211–212. Google Scholar
    • Glick W. H., Miller C. C., & Cardinal L. B. 2007. Making a life in the field of organization science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28: 817–835. Google Scholar
    • Gottfredson S. D. 1978. Evaluating psychological research reports: Dimensions, reliability, and correlates of quality judgments. The American Psychologist, 33: 920–934. Google Scholar
    • Hames I. 2012. Peer review in a rapidly evolving landscape. In R. CampbellE. PentzI. Borthwick (Eds.), Academic and Professional Publishing: 15–52. Oxford, U.K.: Chandos Publishing. Google Scholar
    • Ketokivi M., & Mantere S. 2010. Two strategies for inductive reasoning in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 315–333.Abstract , Google Scholar
    • Kilduff M. 2007. Editor’s comments. Academy of Management Review, 32: 8.Link , Google Scholar
    • Kraimer M. K., Seibert S. E., Sargent L. D., Greco L. M., & Nielsen J. 2015. Career obstacles, shocks, and facilitators of professional identification and occupational satisfaction among Academy of Management academic members: Stage 2 study feedback report to the Academy of Management. Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management. Google Scholar
    • Miller C. C. 2006. Peer review in the organizational and management sciences: Prevalence and effects of reviewer hostility, bias, and dissensus. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 425–431.Link , Google Scholar
    • Northcraft G. B. 2001. From the editors. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 1079–1080.Link , Google Scholar
    • Peters D. P., & Ceci S. J. 1982. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5: 187–255. Google Scholar
    • Pitsoulis A., & Schnellenbach J. 2012. On property rights and incentives in academic publishing. Research Policy, 41: 1440–1447. Google Scholar
    • Raelin J. A. 2008. Refereeing the game of peer review. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7: 124–129.Link , Google Scholar
    • Rennie D. 2003. Editorial peer review: Its development and rationale. In F. GodleeT. Jefferson (Eds.), Peer Review in Health Sciences 2nd ed.: 1–13. London: BMJ Publishing Group. Google Scholar
    • Roth W.-M. 2002. Editorial power/authorial suffering. Research in Science Education, 32: 215–240. Google Scholar
    • Schwartz S. J., & Zamboanaga B. L. 2009. The peer-review and editorial system: Ways to fix something that might be broken. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4: 54–61. Google Scholar
    • Smith R. 2006. The Trouble with Medical Journals. London: Royal Society of Medicine. Google Scholar
    • Starbuck W. H. 2003. Turning lemons into lemonade: Where is the value in peer reviews? Journal of Management Inquiry, 12: 344–351. Google Scholar
    • Starbuck W. H. 2005. How much better are the most prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science, 16: 180–200. Google Scholar
    • Suls J., & Martin R. 2009. The air that we breathe: A critical look at practices and alternatives in the peer-review process. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4: 40–50. Google Scholar
    • Tsang E. W. K. 2013. Is this referee really my peer? A challenge to the peer-review process. Journal of Management Inquiry, 22: 166–171. Google Scholar
    • Tsang E. W. K., & Frey B. S. 2007. The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6: 128–136.Link , Google Scholar
    • Tsui A. S., & Hollenbeck J. R. 2009. Successful authors and effective reviewers: Balancing supply and demand in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 12: 259–275. Google Scholar
    • Ware M., & Monkman M. 2008. Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community – An international study. Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) Research Report. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/237295758_Peer_review_in_scholarly_journals_Perspective_of_the_scholarly_community_-_an_international_study. Google Scholar
      Academy of Management
      100 Summit Lake Drive, Suite 110
      Valhalla, NY 10595, USA
      Phone: +1 (914) 326-1800
      Fax: +1 (914) 326-1900
    Academy of Management
    © 2025 Academy of Management
    Powered by Atypon® Literatum