Abstract
This note begins with a review of the particulars of my case: namely, a brief synopsis of my prior research on feedback, and the facts concerning the extent to which my ideas were misrepresented recently. Subsequently, broader issues are raised concerning the research process, and editorial review policies that might mitigate against the creation of academic victims and straw men/women.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
BALCAZAR, R., HOPKINS, B. L., & SUAREZ, Y. (1985–86). A critical, objective review of performance feedback. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 7(3/4), 65–89.
DUUS, R. E. (1988). Response class in the organizational setting: The effects of location-specific feedback. The Psychological Record, 38, 46–65.
KOPELMAN, R. E. (1982–83). Improving productivity through objective feedback: A review of the evidence. National Productivity Review, 2(1), 43–55.
KOPELMAN, R. E. (1986a). Managing productivity in organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
KOPELMAN, R. E. (1986b). Objective feedback. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to field settings. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kopelman, R.E. On Being Cited for Saying Nearly the Opposite of What You Said: A Comment on Duus (1988). Psychol Rec 39, 597–599 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395087
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395087