Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Management Inquiry
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Starbuck, W. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Turning Lemons into Lemonade

Where Is the Value in Peer Reviews?

William H. Starbuck

New York University, Stern School of Business

Authors need to view reviewers’ comments not as judgments about the value of their work, but as good data about potential readers of their articles. The editorial review process does have deficiencies, the most serious being that reviewers should decide what articles warrant publication. "Peer review" should mean that reviewers and authors are indeed peers. However, editors typically act as if reviewers have more competence and more valid opinions than authors, and as if they themselves have the wisdom and knowledge to impose constraints on manuscripts. Empirical evidence indicates that editorial decisions incorporate bias and randomness. However, authors need to persuade potential readers to read their articles and that authors’ ideas and theories are plausible and useful. Authors must adapt their manuscripts to readers’ perceptual frameworks. Nevertheless, authors should remember that editors and reviewers are not superior and that the ultimate decisions about what is right must come from inside themselves.

Key Words: journals • publishing • reviewers • authors • editors

Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 12, No. 4, 344-351 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/1056492603258972
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Organizational Research MethodsHome page
A. S. Tsui and J. R. Hollenbeck
Successful Authors and Effective Reviewers: Balancing Supply and Demand in the Organizational Sciences
Organizational Research Methods, April 1, 2009; 12(2): 259 - 275.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Management InquiryHome page
M. Driver
Reviewer Feedback as Discourse of the Other: A Psychoanalytic Perspective on the Manuscript Review Process
Journal of Management Inquiry, December 1, 2007; 16(4): 351 - 360.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Organization StudiesHome page
W. H. Starbuck
Vita Contemplativa: Why I Stopped Trying to Understand the Real World
Organization Studies, September 1, 2004; 25(7): 1233 - 1254.
[Abstract] [PDF]