Commentators expressed contrasting views on the authors' examination of scientific achievement and editorial board membership in the management discipline. In response, the authors address key points with which they disagree and hold fast to their admonitory conclusions, neither compromising nor retreating from the recounting of base facts. If the authors' conclusions have prompted a measure of cognitive dissonance, they hope that any associated discomfort will lead to action on the part of all of the discipline's journals and their sponsoring organizations.
Academy of Management. (2006, August 10). Journals governance task force report. Briarcliff Manor, NY: Author.
2.
Akst, D. (2008, March 8). Information libration. Wall Street Journal, p. W13.
3.
Allen, M.P. (2003). The ``core influence'' of journals in sociology revisited. Footnotes, 31(9), pp. 7, 10. Retrieved July 20, 2004, from http://www.asanet.org/footnotes/dec03/fn11.html
4.
Amabile, T.M. (1983). Brilliant but cruel: Perceptions of negative evaluations . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 146-156.
5.
Amabile, T.M., & Glazebrook, A.H. (1981). A negativity bias in interpersonal evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 1-22.
6.
American Psychological Association. (2005). Members of underrepresented groups: Reviewers for journal manuscripts wanted . Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 820.
7.
Bedeian, A.G. (2003). The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors. Journal of Management Inquiry , 12, 331-338.
8.
Bedeian, A.G. (2005). Crossing disciplinary boundaries: An epilegomenon for Lockett and McWilliams. Journal of Management Inquiry , 14, 151-155.
9.
Bedeian, A.G.(in press). 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 Y. Baruch, A. Konrad, H. Aguinis, & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
10.
Bedeian, A.G., Van Fleet, D.D., & Hyman, H.H., III. (2009). Scientific achievement and editorial board membership. Organizational Research Methods, 12(2), 211-238.
11.
Biagioli, M. (2002). From book censorship to academic peer review. Emergences, 12, 11-45.
12.
Cain, J. (2004). Why be my colleague's keeper? Moral justification for peer review. In D. Shatz (Ed.), Peer review: A critical inquiry (pp. 179-190). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
13.
Campanario, J.M. (1998). Peer review for journals as it stands today-Part 1. Science Communication, 19, 181-211.
14.
Daniel, H.-D., Mittag, S., & Bornmann, L. (2007). The potential and problems of peer evaluation in higher education and research. In A. Cavalli (Ed.), Quality assessment for higher education (pp. 71-82). London: Portland.
15.
DeNisi, A. (1997). Message from Angelo DeNisi. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 259.
16.
Donovan, S.K. (2007). The importance of resubmitting rejected papers . Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 38, 151-155.
17.
Evans, J.H. (2007). Consensus and knowledge production in an academic field. Poetics, 35, 1-21.
18.
Gieryn, T.F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19.
Glick, W.H., Miller, C.C., & Cardinal, L.B. (2007). Making a life in the field of organization science. Journal of Organization Behavior , 28, 817-835.
20.
Gordon, M.D. (1980). The role of referees in scientific communication . In J. Hartley (Ed.), The psychology of written communication: Selected readings (pp. 262-275). New York: Nichols.
21.
Hambrick, D.C. (2007). The field of management's devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1346-1352.
22.
Hames, I. (2007). Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals: Guidelines for good practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
23.
Hitt, M.A. (2009). Editorial judgments, quality scholarship, and the Academy of Management's journals. Organizational Research Methods, 12(2), 253-259.
24.
Hojat, M., Gonnella, J.S., & Caelleigh, A. (2003). Impartial judgment by the ``gatekeepers'' of science: Fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Advances in Health Science Education: Theory and Practice, 8, 75-96.
25.
Ireland, R.D. (2008). From the editors: Strength as the foundation for continuing success. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 9-12.
Klimoski, R.J. (2009). Begin the journey with the end in mind. Organizational Research Methods, 12(2), 239-252.
28.
Kochen, M. (1978). Discussion. In M. Balaban (Ed.), Scientific information transfer: The editor's role (pp. 237-242). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Reidel.
29.
Lee, T. (2002). From the editors. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 9-11.
30.
Lee, T. (2007). President's column. Academy of Management News, 35(4). Retrieved January 23, 2008, from http://publications.aomonline.org/newsletter/
31.
Lindsey, D. (1978). The corrected quality ratio: A composite index of scientific contribution to knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 8, 349-354.
32.
Lock, S. (1991). Introduction to third impression: A difficult balance: Editorial peer review in medicine. London: British Medical Journal.
33.
Lockett, A., & McWilliams, A. (2005). The balance of trade between disciplines: Do we effectively manage knowledge? Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 139-150.
34.
MacCallum, R.C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K.J., & Rucker, D.D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 77, 19-40.
35.
McDonald, T.L. (2003). Review of environmental monitoring methods: Survey designs. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 85, 277-292.
36.
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)
37.
Michels, R. (1995). Peer review. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 76, 217-221.
38.
Miller, C.C., Glick, W.H., & Cardinal, L.B. (2005). The allocation of prestigious positions in organizational science: Accumulative advantage, sponsored mobility, and contest mobility. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 489-516.
39.
Parnell, J. (1997). Assessing management journal quality: A methodological critique and empirical analysis. Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business , 33(1), 69-83.
40.
Reay, M. (2007). Academic knowledge and expert authority inAmerican economics. Sociological Perspectives, 50, 101-129.
41.
Roediger, H.L., III. (1987). The role of journal editors in the scientific process. In D. N. Jackson & J. P. Rushton (Eds.), Scientific excellence: Origins and assessment (pp. 222-252). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
42.
Rynes, S.L. (2006). ``Getting on board'' with AMJ: Balancing quality and innovation in the review process. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1097-1102.
43.
Starbuck, W.H., Aguinis, H., Konrad, A., & Baruch, Y.(in press). Tradeoffs among editorial goals in complex publishing environments . In Y. Baruch, A. Konrad, H. Aguinis, & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
44.
Tsui, A.S., & Hollenbeck, J.R. (2009). Successful authors and effective reviewers: Balancing supply and demand in the organizational sciences . Organizational Research Methods, 12(2), 259-275.
45.
Van Fleet, D.D., McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D.S. (2000). A theoretical and empirical analysis of journal rankings: The case of formal lists. Journal of Management , 26, 839-861.
46.
Van Lange, P.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.
47.
Weller, A.C. (2001). Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses . Medford, NJ: Information Today .
48.
Zaleznik, A. (1992). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review, 70(2), 126-135. (Original work published 1972)
49.
Ziman, J. (1978). Discussion. In M. Balaban (Ed.), Scientific information transfer: The editor's role (pp. 237-242). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Reidel.
50.
Ziman, J. (1982). Bias, incompetence, or bad management? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 245-246.
