The Editorial Process: Submission to the rejection (or Accept)

Manuel Aníbal Silva Portugal Vasconcelos Ferreira

Abstract


The Editorial Process: Submission to the rejection (or Accept)

 

DOI:10.5585/riae.v12i3.2042

 


References


Baumeister, R. Dear journal editor, it’s me again, American Journal of Roentgenology, 158: 915-, 1992.

Bedeian, A. The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors, Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(4): 331-338, 2003.

Beyer, J., Chanove, R. & Fox, W. The review process and the fates of manuscripts submitted to the AMJ, Academy of Management Journal, 38(5): 1219-1260, 1995.

Casadevall, A. & Fang, F. Is peer review censorship?, Infection and Immunity, 77(4): 1273-1274, 2009.

Clark, T, Floyd, S. & Wright, M. On the review process and journal development, Journal of Management Studies, 43(3): 655-664, 2006.

Diniz, E. Editorial, Revista de Administração de Empresas, 53(1): 1.

Ehara, S. & Takahashi, K. Reasons for rejection of manuscripts submitted to AJR by international authors, American journal of Roentgenology, 188: W113–W116, 2007.

Finke, R. Recommendations for contemporary editorial practices. American Psychologist, 45: 669-670, 1990.

Frey, B. Publishing as prostitution? Choosing between one’s own ideas and academic success. Public Choice, 116: 205-223, 2002.

Garfunkel, J., Ulshen, M., Hamrick, H. & Lawson, E. Problems identifíed by secondary review of accepted manuscripts. Joumal of the American Medical Association, 263:1369-1371, 1990.

Hojat, M., Gonnella, J. & Caelleigh, A. Impartial judgment by the “Gatekeepers” of science: Fallibility and accountability in the peer review process, Advances in Health Sciences Education, 8(1): 75-96, 2003.

Judson, H. Structural transformations of the sciences and the end of peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 212: 92-94, 1994.

Laband, D. Is there value-added from the review process in economics? Preliminary evidente from authors. Quarterly Joumal of Economics, 105: 341-352, 1990.

Macdonald, S. & Kam, J. Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies, Management Research News, 31(8): 595-606, 2008.

Macdonald, S. & Kam, J. Ring a ring o’ roses: quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies, Journal of Management Studies, 44(4): 640-655, 2007.

Miller, C. Peer review in the organizational and management sciences: Prevalence and effects of reviewer hostility, bias and dissensus, Academy of Management Journal, 49(3): 425-430, 2006.

Samkin, G. Academic publishing: A faustian bargain?, Australasian Accounting Business and Finance Journal, 5(1), 19-34, 2011.

Shugan, S. Editorial: The mission of Marketing Science. Marketing Science. 21(1): 1-13, 2002.

Shugan, S. The editor's secrets, Marketing Science, 26(5): 589-595, 2007.

Starbuck, W. How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science, 16(2): 180-202, 2005.

Stossel, T. Reviewer status and review quality: Experience of the Joumal of Clinical Investigution. New England Joumal of Medicine, 312: 1658-1659, 1985.

Tight, M. Reviewing the reviewers, Quality in Higher Education, 9(3): 295-303, 2003.

Tsang, E. & Frey, B. The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas. Acad. Management Learning Education, 6(1): 128-136, 2007.

Van Teijlingen, E. & Hundley, V. Getting your paper to the right journal: A case study of an academic paper, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 37(6): 506-511, 2002.

Van Wyk (1998) Publish or perish: A system and a mess. System Practice and Action Research, 11(3): 247-259, 1998.


Full Text: PDF (Português (Brasil))

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Iberoamerican Journal of Strategic Management  e-ISSN: 2176-0756

Licença Creative Commons
Este obra está licenciado com uma Licença
Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-CompartilhaIgual 4.0 Internacional