Peer Review, Root Canals, and Other Amazing Life Events
2015; Academy of Management; Volume: 1; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.5465/amd.2015.0039
ISSN2168-1007
AutoresC. Chet Miller, Andrew H. Van de Ven,
Tópico(s)Management and Organizational Studies
ResumoAcademy of Management DiscoveriesVol. 1, No. 2 From the EditorPeer Review, Root Canals, and Other Amazing Life EventsC. Chet Miller and Andrew H. Van de VenC. Chet MillerUniversity of Houston and Andrew H. Van de VenUniversity of MinnesotaPublished Online:22 Jul 2015https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2015.0039AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsDownload CitationsAdd to favoritesTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail View articleREFERENCESAmabile T. M. 1983. Brilliant but cruel: Perceptions of negative evaluators. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19: 146–156. Google ScholarBedeian A. G. 2003. The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12: 331–338. Google ScholarBedeian 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 ScholarBeyer 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 ScholarClair J. A. 2015. Toward a bill of rights for manuscript submitters. Academy of Learning and Education, forthcoming. Google ScholarDavis G.F. 2014. Why do we still have journals? Administrative Science Quarterly, 59: 193–201. Google ScholarGlenn N. D. 1976. The journal article review process: Some proposals for change. American Sociologist, 11: 179–185. Google ScholarGlenn N. D. 1982. The journal article review process as a game of chance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5: 211–212. Google ScholarGlick 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 ScholarGottfredson S. D. 1978. Evaluating psychological research reports: Dimensions, reliability, and correlates of quality judgments. The American Psychologist, 33: 920–934. Google ScholarHames 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 ScholarKetokivi M., & Mantere S. 2010. Two strategies for inductive reasoning in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 315–333.Abstract , Google ScholarKilduff M. 2007. Editor's comments. Academy of Management Review, 32: 8.Link , Google ScholarKraimer 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 ScholarMiller 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 ScholarNorthcraft G. B. 2001. From the editors. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 1079–1080.Link , Google ScholarPeters 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 ScholarPitsoulis A., & Schnellenbach J. 2012. On property rights and incentives in academic publishing. Research Policy, 41: 1440–1447. Google ScholarRaelin J. A. 2008. Refereeing the game of peer review. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7: 124–129.Link , Google ScholarRennie 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 ScholarRoth W.-M. 2002. Editorial power/authorial suffering. Research in Science Education, 32: 215–240. Google ScholarSchwartz 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 ScholarSmith R. 2006. The Trouble with Medical Journals. London: Royal Society of Medicine. Google ScholarStarbuck W. H. 2003. Turning lemons into lemonade: Where is the value in peer reviews? Journal of Management Inquiry, 12: 344–351. Google ScholarStarbuck W. H. 2005. How much better are the most prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science, 16: 180–200. Google ScholarSuls 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 ScholarTsang 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 ScholarTsang 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 ScholarTsui 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 ScholarWare 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 ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Vol. 1, No. 2 Permissions Metrics in the past 12 months History Published online 22 July 2015 Published in print 1 December 2015 Information© Academy of Management DiscoveriesAcknowledgmentsWe thank Africa Arino, Peter Bamberger, Steven Barley, Jean Bartunek, Peter Cappelli, Royston Greenwood, Donald Hambrick, Rebecca Henderson, John Hollenbeck, Curtis LeBaron, Alan Meyer, Jeffrey Pfeffer, Denise Rousseau, Sara Rynes, Stephen Shortell, Anne Tsui, Michael Tushman, and Mary Waller for their input and encouragement in preparing this article.Download PDF
Referência(s)