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]  Oscar M. Palos.  From the editor , 1970, DATB.

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

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

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

[5]  Juan Miguel Campanario,et al.  Have Referees Rejected Some of the Most-Cited Articles of All Times? , 1996, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[16]  D. Coghlan.  Rhythms of Academic Life: Personal Accounts of Careers in Academia , 1997 .

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

[18]  Dag W. Aksnes,et al.  Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

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

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

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

[22]  Eric Young,et al.  Editorial , 1955, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

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

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

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

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

[27]  Gemma Alderton,et al.  From the editors , 2007, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology.

[28]  P. Holman,et al.  Educating Rita. , 1983, Nursing mirror.

[29]  From the Editors Everything You've Always Wanted to Know about Amj (but May Have Been Afraid to Ask) What Are the Criteria for Publishing Articles in Amj? What Are the Major Causes of Rejection? , 2022 .

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

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

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