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

Chapter 14 in Opening the Black Box of Editorship, 2008, pp 134-142 from Palgrave Macmillan

Abstract: Abstract 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.

Keywords: Review Process; Management Inquiry; Original Manuscript; Proper Role; Management Discipline (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2008
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pal:palchp:978-0-230-58259-0_14

Ordering information: This item can be ordered from
http://www.palgrave.com/9780230582590

DOI: 10.1057/9780230582590_14

Access Statistics for this chapter

More chapters in Palgrave Macmillan Books from Palgrave Macmillan
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().