A cornerstone of the scientific ethos is that editorial board members should be selected based on their scholarly achievements, as demonstrated by publications in peer-reviewed journals and evidence that their work is of value to others in their disciplines. To discern if this reasoning is applied in practice, this study examined the scholarly records of the editorial boards of premier peer-reviewed journals sponsored by the leading professional associations in management and six related disciplines.
Academy of Management. (2005). Code of ethical conduct. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 1188-1192.
2.
Academy of Management. (2006, August 10). Journals Governance Task Force report. Briarcliff Manor, NY: Author.
3.
American Psychological Association. (2005). Members of underrepresented groups: Reviewers for journal manuscripts wanted . Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 820.
4.
Ashforth, B.E. (2005). Becoming vanilla pudding: How we undermine our passion for research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 400-413.
5.
Azar, O.H. (2006). The academic review process: How can we make it more effective? American Economist, 50(1), 37-50.
6.
Baker, D.R. (1990). Citation analysis: A methodological review. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 26(3), 3-10.
7.
Baruch, Y., & Hall, D.T. (2004). The academic career: A model for future careers in other sectors? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 241-262.
8.
Bazerman, M.H. (1999). Smart money decisions. New York: John Wiley.
9.
Bedeian, A.G. (1996). Thoughts on the making and remaking of the management discipline. Journal of Management Inquiry, 5, 311-318.
10.
Bedeian, A.G. (2003). The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors. Journal of Management Inquiry , 12, 331-338.
11.
Bedeian, A.G. (2004). Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3, 198-216.
12.
Bergh, D.D., Perry, J., & Hanke, R. (2005). Some predictors of SMJ article impact. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 81-100.
13.
Biagioli, M. (2002). From book censorship to academic peer review. Emergences, 12, 11-45.
14.
Biagioli, M. (2005). Rights or rewards? Changing contexts and definitions of scientific authorship. Journal of College and University Law, 27, 83-108.
15.
Biehl, M., Kim, H., & Wade, M. (2006). Relationships among the academic business disciplines: A multi-method citation analysis. Omega, 34, 359-371.
16.
Bird, S.J. (2006). Research ethics, research integrity and the responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 411-412.
17.
Braun, T., Glanzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2006). A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientist, 19(22), 8.
18.
Brooks, R.L. (2005). Measuring university quality. Review of Higher Education, 29, 1-21.
19.
Brown, C. (2004). The Matthew effect of the Annual Reviews series and the flow of scientific communication through the World Wide Web. Scientometrics, 60, 25-36.
20.
Clark, C.X. (1973). Some reflexive comments on the role of editor . Journal of Social Issues, 29, 1-9.
21.
Clark, T., & Wright, M. (2007). Reviewing journal rankings and revisiting peer reviews: Editorial perspectives. Journal of Management Studies , 44, 612-620.
22.
Clemens, E.S., Powell, W.W., McIlwaine, K., & Okamoto, D. (1995). Careers in print: Books, journals, and scholarly reputations. American Journal of Sociology, 101, 433-494.
23.
Cole, J.R., & Cole, S. (1971). Measuring the quality of sociological research: Problems in the use of the Science Citation Index. American Sociologist, 6, 23-29.
24.
Cole, J.R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25.
Colman, A.M., Dhillion, D., & Coulthard, B. (1995). A bibliometric evaluation of the research performance of British university politics departments: Publication in leading journals . Scientometrics, 32, 49-66.
26.
Cronin, B., & Meho, L. (2006). Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 1275-1278.
27.
Cox, W.M., & Blount, J.P. (1989). Research productivity in psychology. American Psychologist, 44, 735-736.
28.
D'Agostino, R.B., Belanger, A., & D'Agostino, R.B. , Jr. (1990). A suggestion for using powerful and informative tests of normality. American Statistician , 44, 316-321.
29.
Daniel, H.-D. (1993). Guardians of science: Fairness and reliability of peer review. (W. E. Russey, Trans.). Weinheim, Germany: VCH Verlagsgesellschaft.
30.
Demski, J.S. (2001, April 22). Some thoughts on accounting scholarship. Presidential address at American Accounting Association annual meeting, Atlanta, GA. Retrieved February 8, 2006, from http://www.cs.trinity.edu/∼rjensen/001aaa/atlanta01.htm .
31.
De Rond, M., & Miller, A.N. (2005). Publish or perish: Bane or boon of academic life ? Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 321-329.
32.
Egghe, L., Rousseau, R., & Van Hooydonk, G. (2000). Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries: Consequences for evaluation studies . Journal of the American Society for Information Science , 51, 145-175.
33.
Epstein, W.M. (1990). Confirmational response bias among social-work journals. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15, 9-38.
34.
Feldman, D.C. (2005). Conversing with editors: Strategies for authors and reviewers. Journal of Management, 31, 649-658.
35.
Feldman, D.C.(in press). Building and maintaining a strong editorial board and core of ad hoc reviewers. In Y. Baruch, A. Konrad, H. Aguinis, & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship. Basing-stoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
36.
Fletcher, R.H., & Fletcher, S.W. (2003). The effectiveness of journal peer review. In F. Godlee & T. Jefferson (Eds.), Peer review in health sciences (2nd ed., pp. 62-75). London : BMJ.
37.
Floyd, S.W., Schroeder, D.M., & Finn, D.A. (1994). ``Only if I'm first author'': Conflict over credit in management scholarship. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 734-747.
38.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Pantheon. (Original work published 1975)
39.
Foucault, M. (1981). The order of discourse. In R. Young (Ed.), Untying the text: A post-structuralist reader (pp. 48-78). Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
40.
Gabehart, M.E. (2005). An analysis of citations to retracted articles in the scientific literature. Unpublished master's thesis, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Retrieved December 14, 2006, from http://ils.unc.edu/MSpapers/3050.pdf .
41.
Garfield, E. (1980, May 12). Bradford's law and related statistical patterns. Current Contents, 4(19), 476-483. Retrieved February 25, 2006, from http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v4p476y1979-80.pdf .
42.
Gauffriau, M., & Larsen, P.O. (2005). Counting methods are decisive for rankings based on publication and citation studies. Scientometrics, 64, 85-93.
43.
Glanzel, W., Debackere, K., Thijs, B., & Schubert, A. (2006). A concise review on the role of author selfcitationsin information science, bibiliometrics and science policy. Scientometrics , 67, 263-277.
44.
Glanzel, W., & Thijs, W. (2004). The influence of author self-citations on bibliometric macro indicators. Scientometrics, 59, 281-310.
45.
Glick, W.H., Miller, C.C., & Cardinal, L.B. (2007). Making a life in the field of organization science. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 28, 817-835.
46.
Graf, C., Wager, E., Bowman, A., Fiack, S., Scott-Lichter, D., & Robinson, A. (2007). Best practice guidelines on publication ethics: A publisher's perspective. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 61(Suppl. 152), 1-26.
47.
Harsanyi, M.A. (1993). Multiple authors, multiple problems-bibiliometrics and the study of scholarly collaboration: A literature review. Library & Information Science Research, 15, 325-354.
48.
Hart, P.M. (1999). Predicting employee life satisfaction: A coherent model of personality, work and nonwork experiences, and domain satisfactions . Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 564-584.
49.
Haveman, H.A. (2007, Spring). Entrepreneurship and academic careers. Work in Progress [A publication of the Section on Organizations, Occupations, and Work, American Sociological Association], 1-3. Retrieved May 29, 2007, from http://www.northpark.edu/sociology/oow/Newsletter/OOWSpring2007.pdf .
50.
Hirsch, J.E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569-16572.
51.
Holcombe, R. (2004). The National Research Council ranking of research universities: Its impact on research in economics. Econ Journal Watch, 1, 498-514. Retrieved February 24, 2006, from http://www.econjournalwatch.org/main/index.php?issues_id=4.
52.
Hollenbeck, J.R., & Mannor, M.J. (in press). Career success and weak paradigms: The role of activity, resiliency, and true score. Journal of Organizational Behavior .
53.
Howard, G.S., Cole, D.A., & Maxwell, S.E. (1987). Research productivity in psychology based publication journals of the American Psychological Association. American Psychologist, 42, 975-986.
54.
Humphreys, L.G. (2002). Problems in individual differences research with peer review, some peer reviewers, and suggestions for reform. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 37, 283-295.
55.
Jacsò, P. (2006). Google scholar: The pros and the cons. Online Information Review, 29, 208-214.
56.
Kenney, J.F. (1939). Mathematics of statistics (Vol. 1). New York: Van Nostrand .
57.
Kilduff, M.J. (2007). The top ten reasons why your paper might not be sent out for review. Academy of Management Review, 32, 700-702.
58.
Krampen, G., Becker, R., Wahner, U., & Montada, L. (2007). On the validity of citation counting in science evaluation: Content analysis of references and citations in psychological publications. Scientometrics, 71, 191-202.
59.
Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions, (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
60.
Leung, K. (2007). The glory and tyranny of citation impact: An East Asian perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 510-513.
61.
Lindsey, D. (1976). Distinction, achievement, and editorial board membership. American Psychologist, 31, 799-804.
62.
Lindsey, D. (1977). Participation and influence in publication review proceedings: A reply. American Psychologist, 32, 579-586.
63.
Lindsey, D. (1978a). The corrected quality ratio: A composite index of scientific contribution to knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 8, 349-354.
64.
Lindsey, D. (1978b). The scientific publication system in social science . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
65.
Lindsey, D. (1979). The editorial review process: Is it a sacred cow ? Contemporary Sociology, 8, 818-824.
66.
Lindsey, D. (1980). Production and citation measures in the sociology of science: The problem of multiple authorship. Social Studies of Science, 10, 145-162.
67.
Lindsey, D. (1982). Further evidence for adjusting for multiple authorship . Scientometrics, 4, 389-395.
68.
Lindsey, D. (1989). Using citation counts as a measure of quality in science: Measuring what's measurable rather than what's valid. Scientometrics, 15, 189-203.
69.
Lindsey, D. (1991). Precision in the manuscript review process: Hargens and Herting revisited. Scientometrics, 22, 313-325.
70.
Lindsey, D. (1999). Ensuring standards in social work research. Research on Social Work Practice, 9, 115-120.
71.
March, J.G. (2004). Parochialism in the evolution of a research community: The case of organizational studies. Management and Organization Review, 1, 5-22.
72.
Margolis, J. (1967). Citation indexing and evaluation of scientific papers. Science, 155, 1213-1219.
73.
Martin, N. (2007). Keeping score: CJR presents a new paradigm for rating journals. EContent Magazine. Retrieved June 23, 2007, from http://www.econtentmag.com/articles/ArticlePrint.aspx?ArticleID=35682.
74.
Merton, R.K. (1973). The normative structure of science. In N. Storer (Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 267-278). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1942)
75.
Merton, R.K., & Zuckerman, H. (1973). Institutionalized patterns of evaluation in science . In N. Storer (Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 460-496). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1971)
76.
Midgley, J. (1999). Academic merit, professional needs, and social work education. Research on Social Work Practice, 9, 104-107.
77.
Nash, F. (1996). Peer review and reproduction of knowledge. Retrieved February 10, 2003, from http://www.psa.ac.uk/Publications/psd/1996/nash3.htm
78.
Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2007). Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences' literature. Journal of Infometrics , 1, 161-169:
79.
Pardeck, J.T. (1992a). Are social work journal editorial boards competent? Some disquieting data with implication for research on social work practice . Research on Social Work Practice, 2, 487-496.
80.
Pardeck, J.T. (1992b). The distinction and achievement levels of social work editorial boards revisited. Research on Social Work Practice , 2, 529-537.
81.
Pardeck, J.T., & Meinert, R.G. (1999). Scholarly achievements of the Social Work editorial board and consulting editors: A commentary. Research on Social Work Practice, 9, 86-91.
82.
Persson, Ö., Glanzel, W., & Danell, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics, 60, 421-432.
83.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Bachrach, D.G., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2005). The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s. Strategic Management Journal , 26, 473-488.
84.
Polak, J.F. (1995). The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process. American Journal of Roentgenology, 165, 685-688.
85.
Price, D.J.D. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.
86.
Rockwell, S. (2006). Ethics of peer review: A guide for manuscript reviewers. New Haven, CT: Yale University, Office of Research Integrity. Retrieved December 7, 2006, from http://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/yale/prethics.pdf.
87.
Roth, W.-M. (2002). Editorial power/authorial suffering. Research in Science Education, 32, 215-240.
88.
Rynes, S., & Shapiro, D. (2005). Public policy and the public interest: What if we mattered more? Academy of Management Journal, 46, 925-927.
89.
Shortz, J., Worthington, E.L., Jr. , McCullough, M.E., Kurusu, T., Bryant , W., & DeVries, H. (1994). Is there more to counting than what meets the eye? Comment on Snyder and Rice . Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 20, 197-202.
90.
Swanson, E.P. (2004). Publishing in the majors: A comparison of accounting, finance, management, and marketing. Contemporary Accounting Research, 21, 223-255.
91.
Tarnow, E. (1999). The authorship list in science: Junior physicists' perceptions of who appears and why. Science and Engineering Ethics, 5, 73-88.
92.
Van Raan, A.F.J. (2006). Comparisons of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups . Scientometrics, 67, 491-502.
93.
Von Glinow, M.A., & Novelli, L., Jr. (1982). Ethical standards within organizational behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 417-436.
94.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Eds. & Trans.). New York : Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1922)
95.
Wiseman, R.M., & Skilton, P.F. (1999). Divisions and differences: Exploring publication preferences and productivity across management subfields. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8, 299-320.
96.
Wooding, S., Wilcox-Jay, K., Lewison, G., & Grant, J. (2006). A novel recursive algorithmic method for dealing with homonyms in bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 66, 11-21.
97.
Ziman, J.M. (1984). An introduction to science studies: The philosophical and social aspects of science and technology. Cambridge , UK: Cambridge University Press.
