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
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.
KeywordsReview Process Management Inquiry Original Manuscript Proper Role Management Discipline
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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.pdfGoogle Scholar
- Bedeian, A. G., Van Fleet, D. D., & Hyman, H. H., III (2007). Scientific achievement and editorial-board membership. In press, at Organizational Research Methods.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Daft, R. L. (1983). Learning the craft of organizational research. Academy o fManagement Review, 8, 539–46.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Shepherd, G. B. (Ed.). (1995). Rejected: Leading economists ponder the publication process. Sun Lakes, AZ: Thomas Horton and Daughters.Google Scholar
- Starbuck, W. H. (2006). Organizational realities: Studies of strategizing and organizing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses. Medford, NJ: American Society for Information Science and Technology.Google Scholar