Publication in top journals has become an indicator of academic performance that has huge influence on academic careers, on research funding, and on institutional rankings. Pressure to publish in these journals is immense. Pre-publication peer review, never without its critics, cannot cope. Yet, more depends on this peer review than ever before. The activities of academic publishers, governments, research councils, and universities are all ultimately supported by a system that is heavily gamed and cannot withstand scrutiny. The article compares the practice of peer review with its replacement, the peer review of myth. Myth, like religion, is dependent on faith, not logic. The article looks closely at the transition, focusing particularly on management studies. It explores how the practice of peer review, with all its deficiencies, has been superseded by the peer review of myth, with no deficiencies at all. Vested interests profit, but academic research suffers.
AdlerN.HarzingA.-W. (2009). When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8, 72-95.
2.
AnckerJ.FlanaginA. (2007). A comparison of conflict of interest policies at peer-reviewed journals in different scientific disciplines. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, 147-157.
3.
AngellM. (2004). The truth about the drug companies. New York, NY: Random House.
4.
ArmstrongJ. (1984). Peer review of scientific papers. Journal of Biological Response Modifiers, 3, 10-14.
5.
Baden-FullerC.RavazzoloF.SchweizerT. (2000). Making and measuring reputations. Long Range Planning, 33, 621-650.
6.
BedeianA. (1996). Improving the journal review process: The question of ghostwriting. American Psychologist, 51, Article 1189.
7.
BedeianA. (1997). Of fiction and fraud: A comment on Barry and Elmes’ article. Academy of Management Review, 22, 840-842.
8.
BedeianA. (2003). The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 331-338.
9.
BedeianA. (2004). Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3, 198-216.
10.
BedeianA. (2007). Even if the tower is “ivory,” it isn’t “white”: Understanding the consequences of faculty cynicism. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6, 9-32.
11.
BedeianA. (2008). 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. In BaruchY.KonradA.AquinasH.StarbuckW. (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship (pp. 134-142). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
12.
BedeianA.TaylorS. G.MillerA. N. (2010). Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 715-725.
13.
BergstromT. (2001). Free labour for costly journals?Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15, 183-198.
14.
BidneyD. (1955). Myth, symbolism, and truth. Journal of American Folklore, 68, 379-392.
15.
BraleyM. (2005). Reed Elsevier: Moving the Supertanker. Deutsche Bank, Frankfurt: Company Focus: Global Equity Research Report.
16.
British Academy. (2007). Peer review: The challenges for the humanities and social sciences. London, England: British Academy.
17.
BuntingC. (2005, February25). Early careers spent grinding teeth, not cutting them. Times Higher Education, p. 18.
18.
CasadevallA.FangF. (2009). Is peer review censorship?Infection and Immunity, 77, 1273-1274.
CeciS.PetersD. (1982). Peer review: A study of reliability. Change: The Magazine of Higher Education, 14(6), 44-48.
21.
CohenP. (1969). Theories of myth. Man, 4, 337-353.
22.
DavidoffF.DeAngelisC.DrazenJ.HoeyJ.HojgaardL.HortonR.. . .WilkesM. (2001). Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability. The Lancet, 358, 854-855.
23.
DewatripontM.LegrosP.GinsburghV.WalckiersA. (2007). Pricing of scientific journals and market power. Journal of the European Economic Association, 5, 400-410.
24.
EdlinA.RubinfeldD. (2004). Exclusion or efficient pricing? The “big deal” bundling of academic journals. Antitrust Law Journal, 72, 119-157.
25.
EichenwaldK.KolataG. (1999, May16). Drug trials hide conflicts for doctors: Research for hire. The New York Times, 1, 34-35.
26.
FalkR. (2007). Academic freedom under siege. International Studies Perspectives, 8, 369-375.
27.
FangF.SteenR.CasadevallA. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 17028-17033.
28.
FitzpatrickK. (2011). Publishing, technology and the future of the academy. New York: New York University Press.
29.
FlanaginA.CareyL.FontanarosaP.PhillipsSPaceB.LundbergG.RennieD. (1998). Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 222-224.
30.
FoxJ.NousalaS. (2011, July). The minister’s black veil. Transcending the cloak in peer reviewing. Paper presented to the Fourth International Conference on Engineering and Technological Innovation, Orlando, FL.
31.
FreyB. (2003). Publishing as prostitution? Choosing between one’s own ideas and academic success. Public Choice, 116, 205-223.
32.
FreyB.OsterlohM. (2011, August). Ranking games (Working Paper No. 39). Department of Economics, University of Zurich, Switzerland.
33.
GallagherJ. (2014, July2). Japanese stem-cell “breakthrough” findings retracted. BBC News. Retrieved from www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28124749
34.
GannonF. (2005). Is the system dumbing down research?European Molecular Biology Organization Reports, 6(5), Article 387.
35.
GansJ.ShepherdG. (1994). How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles by leading economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 165-179.
36.
GarfieldE. (1974, January9). Selecting the all-time citation classics. Here are the fifty most cited papers for 1961-1972. Current Contents, 2, 6-9.
37.
GarfieldE. (1996, October). Citation indexes for retrieval and research evaluation. Paper presented at a conference on Theory and Practice of Research Assessment, Capri, Italy.
38.
GarfieldE. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295, 90-93.
39.
GlickW.MillerC.CardinalL. (2007). Making a life in the field of organization science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 817-835.
40.
GodleeF.GaleC.MartynC. (1998). Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 237-240.
41.
Goldbeck-WoodS. (1999). Evidence on peer review—Scientific quality control or smokescreen?British Medical Journal, 318, 44-45.
GustonD. (2003). The expanding role of peer review processes in the United States. In ShapiraP.KhulmannS. (Eds.), Learning from science and technology policy evaluation: Experiences from the United States and Europe (pp. 81-97). Cheltenham, UK: Elgar.
45.
HagstromW. (1974). Competition in science. American Sociological Review, 39, 1-18.
46.
HallW.NousalaS. (2010, July). What is the value of peer review—Some sociological considerations. Paper presented to the Second International Symposium on Peer Reviewing, Orlando, FL.
HanssonF. (2006). Research evaluation and organisational learning in the university: A possible coexistence?International Journal of Learning and Change, 1, 267-284.
49.
HarleyS. (2002). The impact of research selectivity on academic work and identity in UK universities. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 187-205.
50.
HarleyS.LeeF. (1997). Research selectivity, managerialism, and the academic labor process: The future of nonmainstream economics in UK universities. Human Relations, 50, 1427-1460.
HarvieD.LightfootG.LilleyS.WeirK. (2012). What are we to do with feral publishers?Organization, 19, 905-914.
53.
HarzingA.-W. (2002). Are our referencing errors undermining our scholarship and credibility? The case of expatriate failure rates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 127-148.
54.
HarzingA.-W. (2013). Document categories in the ISI Web of Knowledge: Misunderstanding the social sciences?Scientometrics, 94, 23-34.
55.
HeinzeT.ShapiraP.RogersJ.SenkerJ. (2009). Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research. Research Policy, 38, 610-623.
56.
HemlinS.RasmussenS. (2006). The shift in academic quality control. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31, 173-198.
57.
HochbergM.ChaseJ.GotelliN.HastingsA.NaeemS. (2009). The tragedy of the reviewer commons. Ecology Letters, 12, 2-4.
58.
HojatM.GonnellaJ.CaelleighA. (2003). Impartial judgment by the “gatekeepers” of science: Fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 8, 75-96.
59.
HoldenC. (2000). NEJM admits breaking its own tough rules. Science, 287, 1573.
60.
HorrobinD. (1990). The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1438-1441.
61.
HorrobinD. (2001). Something rotten at the core of science?Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 22, 51-52.
62.
House of Commons. (2011). Peer review in scientific publications. London, England: Science and Technology Committee, Stationery Office.
63.
IoannidisJ. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medcine, 2(8), e124.
64.
JacobsA.HamiltonC. (2009). Decreased evidence of ghostwriting in a 2008 vs 2005 survey of medical writers. The Write Stuff, 18, 118-123.
65.
JarleyP.ChandlerT.FaulkL. (1998). Are we playing the same game?: Publishing task environments and research productivity among management specialists. Human Relations, 51, 799-824.
66.
JeffersonT.AldersonP.WagerE.DavidoffF. (2002). Effects of editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 2784-2786.
67.
JohnsonJ.PodsakoffP. (1994). Journal influence in the field of management: An analysis using Salancik’s Index in a dependency network. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1392-1407.
68.
JosephR. (1989). Silicon Valley myth and the origins of technology parks in Australia. Science and Public Policy, 16, 353-366.
69.
JosephR. (1997). Political myth, high technology and the information superhighway: An Australian perspective. Telematics and Informatics, 14, 289-301.
LowryO.RosebroughN.FarrA.RandallR. (1951). Protein measurement with the folin phenol reagent. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 193, 265-275.
80.
LuukkonenT. (2012). Conservatism and risk-taking in peer review: Emerging ERC practices. Research Evaluation, 21, 48-60.
81.
MacdonaldS. (1983). Agricultural improvement and the neglected labourer. Agricultural History Review, 31, 81-90.
82.
MacdonaldS. (2011a). Seducing the goose: A review of patenting by UK universities. Intellectual Property Quarterly, 4, 323-344.
83.
MacdonaldS. (2011b). The skewed few: People and papers of quality in management studies. Organization, 18, 467-476.
84.
MacdonaldS.KamJ. (2007a). Aardvark et al. . . . : Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies. Journal of Information Science, 33, 702-717.
85.
MacdonaldS.KamJ. (2007b). Ring a ring o’ roses: Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 640-655.
86.
MacdonaldS.KamJ. (2008). Quality journals and gamesmanship in Management Studies. Management Research News, 31(9), 595-606.
87.
MacdonaldS.KamJ. (2009). Publishing in top journals—A never-ending fad. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25, 221-224.
88.
MacdonaldS.KamJ. (2010). Counting footnotes: Citability in management studies. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26, 189-203.
89.
MaddenA. (2000). When did peer review become anonymous?Aslib Proceedings, 52, 273-276.
90.
MahoneyM. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 161-175.
91.
MartinB. (2013). Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment. Research Policy, 42, 1005-1014.
McGuiganG.RussellR. (2008). The business of academic publishing: A strategic analysis of the academic journal publishing industry and its impact on the future of scholarly publishing. Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, 9(3). Retrieved from http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v09n03/mcguigan_g01.html
94.
MerilainenS.TienariJ.ThomasR.DaviesA. (2008). Hegemonic academic practices: Experiences of publishing from the periphery. Organization, 15, 584-597.
95.
MeyersB. (2004). Peer review software: Has it made a mark on the world of scholarly journals?North Andover, MA: Aries Systems Corporation.
96.
MillerA.TaylorS.BedeianA. (2011). Publish or perish: Academic life as management faculty live it. Career Development International, 16, 422-445.
97.
MillerC. (2006). Peer review in the organizational and management sciences: Prevalence and effects of reviewer hostility, bias, and dissensus. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 425-431.
98.
MinerJ. (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.
99.
MisakianA.BeroL. (1998). Publication bias and research on passive smoking. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 250-253.
100.
MonbiotG. (2003). Guard dogs of perception: The corporate takeover of science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9, 49-57.
NeylonC. (2012, June14). Come join the collective. Times Higher Education, p. 28.
106.
NylennaM.RiisP.KarlssonY. (1994). Multiple blind reviews of the same two manuscripts: Effects of referee characteristics and publication language. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272, 149-151.
107.
O’BrienL.LakemanR.O’BrienA. (2013). Managing potential conflict of interest in journal article publication. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 22, 368-373.
108.
Office of Fair Trading. (2002). The market for scientific, technical and medical journals. London, England: Office of Fair Trading.
109.
OliverM. (2000). SPARC: And alternative lifestyle for academic libraries. Collection Management, 25, 37-49.
110.
OlivieriN. (2003). Patients’ health or company profits? The commercialisation of academic research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9, 29-41.
PaulR. (2008). Measuring research quality: The United Kingdom government’s Research Assessment Exercise. European Journal of Information Systems, 17, 324-329.
PodsakoffP.MacKenzieS.PodsakoffN.BackrachD. (2008). Scholarly influence in the field of management: A bibliographic analysis of the determinants of university and author impact in the management literature of the past quarter century. Journal of Management, 34, 641-720.
117.
PriceD. (1964). Ethics of scientific publication. Science, 144, 655-657.
118.
RaelinJ. (2008). Refereeing the game of peer review. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7, 124-129.
119.
RobergsR. (2003). A critical review of peer review: The need to scrutinize the “gatekeepers” of research in exercise physiology. Journal of Exercise Physiology, 6(2), i-xiii.
120.
RobertsT.ShambrookJ. (2012). Academic excellence: A commentary and reflections on the inherent value of peer review. Journal of Research Administration, 43, 33-38.
121.
RothwellP.MartynC. (2000). Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?Brain, 123, 1964-1969.
122.
Samuel Johnson in Boswell, J. (1791). The Life of Samuel Johnson LL.D.
SmithR. (2011). Richard Smith: A woeful tale of the uselessness of peer review. Retrieved from blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2011/11/11/
130.
SpectorP. (1998). When reviewers become authors: A comment on the journal review process. Research Methods Forum, 3, 1-4.
131.
SpierR. (2002). The history of the peer-review process. Trends in Biotechnology, 20, 357-358.
132.
StarbuckW. (2003). Turning lemons into lemonade: Where is the value in peer reviews?Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 344-351.
133.
StarbuckW. (2005). How much better are the most prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publishing. Organization Science, 16, 180-200.
134.
StroebeW.PostmesT.SpearsR. (2012). Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 670-688.
135.
TahirT. (2008, August28). Cleaning up the act. Times Higher Education, pp. 30-35.
136.
ThurnerS.HanelR. (2010). Peer review in a world of rational scientists: Towards selection of the average (Working Paper 16). Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM.
137.
TienariJ. (2012). Academia as financial markets? Metaphoric reflections and possible responses. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 28, 250-256.
ToddP.YeoD.LiD.LadleR. (2007). Citing practices in ecology: Can we believe our own words?Oikos, 116, 1599-1601.
140.
TriaridisS.KyrgidisA. (2010). Peer review and journal impact factor: The two pillars of contemporary medical publishing. Hippokratia, 14(Suppl. 1), 5-12.
141.
TsangE.FreyB. (2007). The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their own ideas. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6, 128-136.
142.
van TeijlingenE.HundleyV. (2002). Getting your paper to the right journal: A case study of an academic paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 37, 506-511.
143.
WalshE.RooneyM.ApplebyL.WilkinsonG. (2000). Open peer review: A randomised trial. British Journal of Psychiatry, 176, 47-51.
144.
WareM.MonkmanM. (2008). Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community—An international study. Bristol, UK: Mark Ware Consulting.
145.
WatersL. (2004). Enemies of promise: Publishing, perishing, and the eclipse of scholarship. Chicago, IL: Prickly Paradigm Press.
146.
WennerasC.WoldA. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature, 387, 341-343.
147.
WetherallD. (2003). Problems for biomedical research at the academia-industrial interface. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9, 43-48.
148.
WilhiteA.FongE. (2012). Coercive citation in academic publishing. Science, 335, 542-543.
149.
WillmottH. (1995). Managing the academics: Commodification and control in the development of university education in the UK. Human Relations, 48, 993-1027.
150.
WillmottH. (2011). Journal list fetishism and the perversion of scholarship: Reactivity and the ABS list. Organization, 18, 429-442.
151.
WislarJ.FlanaginA.FontanarosaP.DeAngelisC. (2011). Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: A cross sectional survey. British Medical Journal, 343. Retrieved from europepmc.org/articles/PMC3202014
152.
ZuckermanH.MertonR. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9, 66-100.
