A basic assumption of the peer-review process adopted by journals is that referees and authors are similarly knowledgeable about the topics concerned. Given the difficulty of finding qualified referees, this assumption is likely to be violated if the author is a top scholar of the topic and thus has few peers. The peer-review process then breaks down and fails to provide quality comments. Worse still, the submission may be erroneously rejected. Drawing on my experience of submitting philosophy-based papers to business journals, I propose a special review process for improvement.
BedeianA. G. (2003). The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 331-338.
2.
BedeianA. G. (2004). Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3, 198-216.
3.
DayN. E. (2011). The silent majority: Manuscript rejection and its impact on scholars. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10, 704-718.
EdmondsD.EidinowJ. (2001). Wittgenstein’s poker: The story of a ten-minute argument between two great philosophers. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
6.
EisenhartM. (2002). The paradox of peer review: Admitting too much or allowing too little?Research in Science Education, 32, 241-255.
7.
FineM. A. (1996). Reflections on enhancing accountability in the journal review process. American Psychologist, 51, 883-885.
8.
GodfreyP. C.HillC. W. L. (1995). The problem of unobservables in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 519-533.
9.
HorrobinD. F. (1982). Peer review: A philosophically faulty concept which is proving disastrous for science. In HarnadS. (Ed.), Peer commentary on peer review: A case study in scientific control (pp. 33-34). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
HurleyP. (2003). A concise introduction to logic. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
KwanK.-M.TsangE. W. K. (2001). Realism and constructivism in strategy research: A critical realist response to Mir and Watson. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 1163-1168.
13.
LeeA. S.BaskervilleR. L. (2003). Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 14, 221-243.
14.
LeeA. S.BaskervilleR. L. (2012). Conceptualizing generalizability: New contributions and a reply. MIS Quarterly, 36, 749-761.
15.
LeeT. W. (2002). From the editors. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 9-11.
16.
MastermanM. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. In LakatosI.MusgraveA. (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 59-89). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
MillerC. C. (2006). Peer review in the organizational and management sciences: Prevalence and effects of reviewing hostility, bias, and dissensus. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 425-431.
19.
MinerJ. B. (2003). Commentary on Arthur Bedeian’s “The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors.”Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 339-343.
20.
MirR.WatsonA. (2000). Strategic management and the philosophy of science: The case for a constructivist methodology. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 941-953.
21.
NaranieckiA. (2010). Neo-positivist or neo-Kantian? Karl Popper and the Vienna Circle. Philosophy, 85, 511-530.
22.
PopperK. (2002a). The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY: Routledge.
23.
PopperK. (2002b). Unended quest. New York, NY: Routledge.
24.
PoundstoneW. (1990). Labyrinths of reason: Paradox, puzzles, and the reality of knowledge. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
25.
RothW.-M. (2002). Editorial power/authorial suffering. Research in Science Education, 32, 215-240.
26.
StarbuckW. H. (2003). Turning lemons into lemonade: Where is the value in peer reviews?Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 344-351.
27.
TightM. (2003). Reviewing the reviewers. Quality in Higher Education, 9, 295-303.
28.
TsangE. W. K. (2006). Behavioral assumptions and theory development: The case of transaction cost economics. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 999-1011.
29.
TsangE. W. K.EllsaesserF. (2011). How contrastive explanation facilitates theory building. Academy of Management Review, 36, 404-419.
30.
TsangE. W. K.FreyB. S. (2007). The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6, 128-136.
31.
TsangE. W. K.KwanK.-M. (1999). Replication and theory development in organizational science: A critical realist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 759-780.
32.
TsangE. W. K.WilliamsJ. N. (2012). Generalization and induction: Misconceptions, clarifications, and a classification of induction. MIS Quarterly, 36, 729-748.
33.
TsoukasH. (1989). The validity of idiographic research explanations. Academy of Management Review, 14, 551-561.
34.
Van LangeP. A. M. (1999). Why authors believe that reviewers stress limiting aspects of manuscripts: The SLAM effect in peer review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2550-2566.
35.
WelchC.PiekkariR.PlakoyiannakiE.Paavilainen-MäntymäkiE. (2011). Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42, 740-762.
