Bedeian, Van Fleet, and Hyman offer some data that cast doubt on the qualifications of the reviewers of the flagship journals in our field. Using two alternative measures of authoring success, we found the reviewers of Academy of Management Journal are as a group more accomplished scholars than the authors are as a group. However, we suggest that a more relevant conversation should be about addressing the large gap between the demand for effective reviewers and the supply of individuals who are both successful authors and effective reviewers. We encourage a two-pronged approach involving reducing the demand for reviews on one hand and increasing the supply of effective reviewers on the other hand. We offer several procedural and structural alternatives to initiate a conversation that might help to move us toward some norms to encourage and reward effective reviewing in our field.
Azar, O.H. (2006). The academic review process: How can we make it more efficient? American Economist, 50(1), 37-50.
2.
Balistreri, W. (2007). Landmark landmine, or landfill? The role of peer in assessing manuscripts. The Journal of Pediatrics, 151, 107-108.
3.
Baruch, Y., & Hall, D.T. (2004). The academic career: A model for future careers in other sectors? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 241-262.
4.
Bedeian, A.G. (2003). The manuscript review process: The proper role of authors, referees, and editors. Journal of Management Inquiry , 12(4), 331-338.
5.
Bedeian, A.G. (2004). Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3, 198-216.
6.
Bedeian, A.G., Van Fleet, D.D., & Hyman, H.H., III. (2007). Scientific achievement and editorial board membership. Organizational Research Methods. Prepublished November 30th, 2007, DOI: 10.1177/ 1094428107309312.
7.
Beyer, J.M., Chanover, R.G., & Fox, W.B. (1995). The review process and the fates of manuscripts submitted to AMJ. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1219-1260.
8.
Conlon, D.E., Morgeson, F.P., Wiseman, R., McNamara, G., & Skilton, P. (2006). Examining the impact and role of special issue and regular journal articles in the field of management. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 857-872.
9.
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. Basingstroke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
10.
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.
11.
Gilliland, S.W., & Cortina, J.M. (1997). Reviewer and editor decision making in the journal review process, Personnel Psychology, 50, 427-452.
12.
Glenn, N.D. (1976). The journal article review process: Some proposals for change. American Sociologist, 11, 179-185.
13.
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.
14.
Hames, I. (2007). Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals. Malden, MA: Blackwell .
15.
Hargens, L.L. (1988). Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates . American Sociological Review, 53, 139-151.
16.
Hollenbeck, J.R., & Mannor, M.J. (in press). Career success and weak paradigms: The role of activity, resiliency, and true Scores. Journal of Organizational Behavior .
17.
Kronick, D.A. (1990). Peer review in the 18th-century scientific journalism . JAMA, 263, 1321-1322.
18.
Kumashiro, K.K. (2005). Think collaboratively about the peer-review process for journal-article publication. Harvard Educational Review , 75(3), 257-266.
19.
Lindsay, D. (1976). Distinction, achievement, and editorial board membership. American Psychologist, 31, 799-804.
20.
Mahoney, M.J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Theory and Research, 1, 161-175.
21.
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)
22.
Miller, C.C. (2006). From the editors-Peer review in the organizational and management sciences: Prevalence and effects of reviewer hostility, bias and dissensus. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 425-432.
23.
Miller, C.C., Glick, W.H., & Cardinal, L.B. (2005). The allocation of prestigious positions in organization science: Accumulative advantage, sponsored mobility, and contest mobility. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 489-516.
24.
Miner, J.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.
25.
Pardeck, J.T. (1992). 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.
26.
Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 599-620.
27.
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.
28.
Polak, J.F. (1995). The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process. American Journal of Roentgenology, 165, 685-688.
29.
Robergs, A.R. (2003). A critical review of peer review: The need to scrutinize the ``gatekeepers'' of research in exercise physiology. Official Journal of the American Society of Exercise Physiologists online , 6, 2.
30.
Rynes, S.L. (2006). ``Getting on board'' with AMJ-Balancing quality and innovation in the review process. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1097-1102.
31.
Spector, P.E. (1998). When reviewers become authors: A comment on the journal review process. Research Methods Forum [A publication of the Research Methods Division, Academy of Management], 1-4. Retrieved December 11, 2005, from http://www.aom.pace.edu/rmd/1998_forum_reviewers_become_authors.html
32.
Starbuck, W.H. (2003). Turning lemons into lemonade: Where is the value in peer reviews? Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 344-361.
33.
Starbuck, W.H. (2005). How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organizational Science , 16, 180-200.
34.
Trevino, L.K. (2008). Why review? Because reviewing is a professional responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 8-10.
35.
Tsang, E.W.K., & Frey, B.S. (2007). The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas. Academy of Management Learning & Education , 6(1), 128-136.
36.
Tsui, A.S.From homogenization to pluralism: International management research in the academy and beyond. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1353-1364.
