The As-Is Journal Review Process: Let Authors Own Their Ideas.

Recently, the problems associated with the existing journal review process aroused discussions from seasoned management researchers, who have also made useful suggestions for improving the process. To complement these suggestions, we propose a more radical change: a manuscript should be reviewed on an ?as is? basis and its fate be determined in one round of review. The as-is review process shortens the time period from submission to final acceptance, reduces the workload of editors, referees and authors, provides frank author feedback to referees, and, most important, lets authors own all of the ideas in their publications.

[1]  Arthur G. Bedeian,et al.  The Manuscript Review Process , 2003 .

[2]  Gebhard Kirchgässner,et al.  Towards a theory of low-cost decisions , 1992 .

[3]  M. Eisenhart.  The Paradox of Peer Review: Admitting too Much or Allowing too Little? , 2002 .

[4]  G. Becker,et al.  The Economic Approach to Human Behavior , 1978 .

[5]  Blake E. Ashforth,et al.  Becoming Vanilla Pudding , 2005 .

[6]  Juan Miguel Campanario.  Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? , 1996 .

[7]  Bruce Kogut,et al.  A memoir and reflection: knowledge and an evolutionary theory of the multinational firm 10 years later , 2003 .

[8]  A. Brief.  Editor's Comments: AMR—The Often Misunderstood Journal , 2003 .

[9]  William H. Starbuck,et al.  Turning Lemons into Lemonade , 2003 .

[10]  B. Kogut,et al.  Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology , 1992 .

[11]  Bruno S. Frey,et al.  Economics As A Science Of Human Behaviour , 1992 .

[12]  E. Romanelli.  Becoming a Reviewer: Lessons Somewhat Painfully Learned , 1995 .

[13]  A. Meyer.  Balls, Strikes, and Collisions on the Base Path: Ruminations of a Veteran Reviewer , 1995 .

[14]  Arthur G. Bedeian,et al.  Peer Review and the Social Construction of Knowledge in the Management Discipline , 2004 .

[15]  The Publishing Process: The Struggle for Meaning , 1996 .

[16]  Lawrence D. Brown.  The Importance of Circulating and Presenting Manuscripts: Evidence from the Accounting Literature , 2005 .

[17]  Paula L. Rechner.  Rhythms of Academic Life: Personal Accounts of Careers in Academia , 1997 .

[18]  William H. Starbuck,et al.  How Much Better are the Most Prestigious Journals? The Statistics of Academic Publication , 2005, Organ. Sci..

[19]  Wolff-Michael Roth,et al.  Editorial Power/Authorial Suffering , 2002 .

[20]  Glenn Ellison.  The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process , 2000 .

[21]  Paul A. M. Van Lange,et al.  Why (authors believe that) reviewers stress limiting aspects of manuscripts: The SLAM effect in peer review. , 1999 .

[22]  B. Frey,et al.  Publishing as Prostitution? Choosing between One's Own Ideas and Academic Failure , 2002 .

[23]  Christian Homburg.  Publishing processes in the academic marketing discipline in the United States: A German perspective , 2003 .

[24]  J. Miner.  Commentary on Arthur Bedeian’s “The Manuscript Review Process: The Proper Roles of Authors, Referees, and Editors” , 2003 .

[25]  J. M. Beyer.  Becoming a Journal Editor , 1996 .

[26]  Charles Oppenheim,et al.  Do citations matter? , 1994, J. Inf. Sci..

[27]  Dag W. Aksnes,et al.  Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution , 2006 .

[28]  Joshua S. Gans,et al.  Why Referees Are Not Paid (Enough) , 1998 .

[29]  Donald D. Bergh,et al.  Some predictors of SMJ article impact , 2006 .

[30]  Bradley L. Kirkman,et al.  Everything You've Always Wanted to Know about AMJ (But May Have Been Afraid to Ask) , 2005 .

[31]  J. Rojewski,et al.  The Art and Politics of Peer Review , 2004 .