Bailar, John C. 1991. “Reliability, Fairness, Objectivity and Other Inappropriate Goals in Peer Review.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences14 (1): 137-138.
2.
Bitner, Mary Jo, Amy L. Ostrom, and Matthew L. Meuter. 2002. “Implementing Successful Self-Service Technologies.” Academy of Management Executive16 (4): 96-109.
3.
Blank, Hartmut. 2002. “Evaluating Reviews: A Possible Means for Quality Control and Reward Allocation in the Review Process.” Cortex38:408-410.
4.
Bowen, David E. 1986. “Managing Customers as Human Resources in Service Organizations.” Human Resource Management25 (3): 371-383.
5.
Cicchetti, Dominic V. 1991. “The Reliability of Peer Review for Manuscript and Grant Submissions: A Cross-Disciplinary Investigation.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences14 (1): 119-186.
6.
Crandall, Rick. 1991. “What Should Be Done to Improve Reviewing?” Behavioral and Brain Sciences14 (1): 143-143.
7.
Ernst, Edzard, T. Saradeth, and Karl-Ludwig Resch. 1993. “Drawbacks of Peer Review.” Nature363:296-296.
8.
Fletcher, Robert H. and Suzanne W. Fletcher. 1997. “Evidence for the Effectiveness of Peer Review.” Science and Engineering Ethics3 (1): 35-50.
9.
Gleser, Leon J. 1986. “Some Notes on Refereeing.” The American Statistician40 (4): 310-312.
10.
Hawkins, Scott A. and Reid Hastie. 1990. “Hindsight: Biased Judgments of Past Events After the Outcomes are Known.” Psychological Bulletin107 (3): 311-327.
11.
Holbrook, Morris B. 1986. “A Note on Sadomasochism in the Review Process: I Hate When That Happens.” Journal of Marketing50 (July): 104-108.
12.
Laband, David N. 1990. “Is There Value-Added From the Review Process in Economics?: Preliminary Evidence From Authors.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics105 (2): 341-352.
13.
Lynch, John G., Jr. 1998. “Reviewing.” Advances in Consumer Research25:1-6.
14.
Markland, Robert E. 1989. “Musings of a Well-Traveled Editor.” Decision Sciences20 (4): vii-xiii.
15.
Schneider, Benjamin and David E. Bowen. 1995. Winning the Service Game. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
16.
Siegelman, Stanley S. 1988. “Guidelines for Reviewers of Radiology.” Radiology166 (2): 360-360.
17.
Summers, John O. 2001. “Guidelines for Conducting Research and Publishing in Marketing: From Conceptualization Through the Review Process.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science29 (4): 405-415.
18.
Vroom, Victor H. 1964. Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley.
19.
Weller, Ann C. 2001. Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
