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

  • Arthur G. Bedeian


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.


Review Process Management Inquiry Original Manuscript Proper Role Management Discipline 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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 Scholar
  2. Bedeian, A. G. (1996a). Improving the journal review process: The question of ghostwriting. American Psychologist, 51, 1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bedeian, A. G. (1996b). Thoughts on making and remaking the management discipline. Journal of Management Inquiry, 5, 311–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bedeian, A. G. (1997). Of fiction and fraud. Academy of Management Review, 22, 840–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bedeian, A. G. (2003). The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 331–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bedeian, A. G. (2004). Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3, 198–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Beebe, J. (2006). Editing as a psychological practice. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 51, 329–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Belcher, W. (2006a). On journal rejection. Flourish: An electronic journal for scholarly writers, 2 (4). Retrieved January 5, 2007, from Scholar
  10. Belcher, W. (2006b). On research on peer review. Flourish: An electronic journal for scholarly writers 2 (7).Retrieved January 5, 2007, from Scholar
  11. Biagioli, M. (2002). From book censorship to academic peer review. Emergences, 12, 11–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Daft, R. L. (1983). Learning the craft of organizational research. Academy o fManagement Review, 8, 539–46.Google Scholar
  14. Daniel, H. -D. (1993). Guardians of science: Fairness and reliability of peer review. (W. E. Russey, Trans.). Weinheim, Germany: VCH Verlagsgesellschaft.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Rond, M., & Miller, A. N. (2005). Publish or perish: bane or boon of academic life? Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 321–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellison, G. (2002). The slowdown in the economics publishing process. Journal of Political Economy, 110, 947–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feldman, D. C. (2005). Conversing with editors: Strategies for authors and reviewers. Journal of Management, 31, 649–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Frey, B. S. (2003). Publishing as prostitution? - Choosing between one’s own ideas and academic success. Public Choice, 116, 205–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miner, J. B. (2003). Commentary on Arthur Bedeian’s “the manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors.” Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 339–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nifadkar, S. S., & Tsui, A. (2007). [Review of the book Great minds in management: The process of theory development]. Academy of Management Review 32,298–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Shepherd, G. B. (Ed.). (1995). Rejected: Leading economists ponder the publication process. Sun Lakes, AZ: Thomas Horton and Daughters.Google Scholar
  24. Starbuck, W. H. (2003). Turning lemons into lemonade: Where is the value in peer review? Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 344–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Starbuck, W. H. (2005). How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science, 16, 180–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Starbuck, W. H. (2006). Organizational realities: Studies of strategizing and organizing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses. Medford, NJ: American Society for Information Science and Technology.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Arthur G. Bedeian 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arthur G. Bedeian

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations