Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:14:04.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Editorial Responsibility: Managing the Publishing Process to Do Good and Do Well

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Herman Aguinis  and
Sofia J. Vaschetto
Herman Aguinis
Affiliation:
Indiana University, USA
Sofia J. Vaschetto
Affiliation:
Indiana University, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Journal editors serve a vital role because they are the gatekeepers of new scientific knowledge. Given the workload and time pressures associated with their role, editors face an important ethical dilemma: Should they allocate sufficient time to the editorial role or should they focus on their individual research performance, which is an important determinant of salary increases, promotions, and other financial rewards? We borrow from the macro-level corporate social responsibility literature to conceptualize editorial responsibility in terms of the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental performance. Our thesis is that there are recursive relationships among the economic, social, and environmental editorial performance dimensions such that editors who do good (i.e., social and environmental performance) also do well (i.e., economic performance). Thus, we bridge micro and macro domains by adapting a macro-level theory to the individual level of analysis and also bridge science and practice by discussing the impact of journal editors and scientific journals on a broad set of stakeholders including universities, research consumers, and society. We also offer suggestions to guide future research on whether the three editorial performance dimensions are part of a virtuous cycle that develops over time through mutually reinforcing feedback loops.

Keywords

ethical dilemmaethicsjournal editingorganizational responsibilitysocial performance道德道德困境期刊编辑组织责任社会绩效
Type
Forum Articles
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , November 2011 , pp. 407 - 422
Copyright
Copyright © International Association for Chinese Management Research 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aguinis, H. 2009. Performance management (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Aguinis, H. 2011. Organizational responsibility. Doing good and doing well. In Zedeck, S. (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology vol. 3: 855–879. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Aguinis, H., de Bruin, G. P., Cunningham, D., Hall, N. L., Culpepper, S. A., & Gottfredson, R. K. 2010. What does not kill you (sometimes) makes you stronger: Productivity fluctuations of journal editors. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9(4): 683–695.Google Scholar
Aguinis, H., Boyd, B. K., Pierce, C. A., & Short, J. C. 2011. Walking new avenues in management research methods and theories: Bridging micro and macro domains. Journal of Management, 37(1): 395–403.Google Scholar
Alexandrescu, F. 2007. Review of the book Community rights and corporate responsibility: Canadian mining and oil companies in Latin America. Critical Sociology, 33(3): 593–595.Google Scholar
Ambec, S., & Lanoie, P. 2008. Does it pay to be green? A systematic overview. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(4): 45–62.Google Scholar
Barley, S. R. 2008. A letter to editors. In Baruch, Y., Konrad, A. M., Aguinis, H. & Starbuck, W. H. (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship: 39–48. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Baruch, Y. 2008. Opening the black box of editorship: Editors' voice. In Baruch, Y., Konrad, A. M., Aguinis, H. & Starbuck, W. H. (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship: 209–222. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Baruch, Y., Konrad, A. M., Aguinis, H., & Starbuck, W. M. (Eds.), 2008. Opening the black box of editorship. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. P. 1982. Editorial: Some remarks from the outgoing editor. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(6): 691–600.Google Scholar
Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. 2008. Research in industrial and organizational psychology from 1963 to 2007: Changes, choices, and trends. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5): 1062–1081.Google Scholar
Certo, S. T., Sirmon, D., & Brymer, R. 2010. Competition and scholarly productivity in management: Investigating changes in scholarship from 1988 to 2008. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9(4): 591–606.Google Scholar
Cochran, P. L. 2007. The evolution of corporate social responsibility. Business Horizons, 50(6): 449–454.Google Scholar
DeNisi, A. S. 2008. Managing the editorial review process: It's the people that matter. In Baruch, Y., Konrad, A. M., Aguinis, H. & Starbuck, W. H. (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship: 75–87. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elkjaer, B. 2009. Review of Opening the Black Box of Editorship by Yehuda Baruch, Alison M. Konrad, Herman Aguinis, and William Starbuck. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(1): 133–134.Google Scholar
Feldman, D. C. 2008. Building and maintaining a strong editorial board and cadre of ad hoc reviewers. In Baruch, Y., Konrad, A. M., Aguinis, H. & Starbuck, W. H. (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship: 68–74. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiol, C. M., O'Connor, E. J., & Aguinis, H. 2001. All for one and one for all? The development and transfer of power across organizational levels. Academy of Management Review, 26(2): 224–242.Google Scholar
Freeman, E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman Press.Google Scholar
García-Izquierdo, A. L., Aguinis, H., & Ramos-Villagrasa, P. J. 2010. Science-practice gap in e-recruitment. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18(4): 432–438.Google Scholar
Gomez-Mejia, L., & Balkin, D. 1992. The determinants of faculty pay: An agency theory perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35(5): 921–955.Google Scholar
Hitt, M. A., Beamish, P. W., Jackson, S. E., & Mathieu, J. E. 2007. Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in management. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6): 1385–1399.Google Scholar
Kacmar, K. M. 2008. Setting up an effective manuscript-review process. In Baruch, Y., Konrad, A. M., Aguinis, H. & Starbuck, W. H. (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship: 49–55. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ketchen, D. J., & Ireland, R. D. 2010. From the editors: Upon further review: A survey of the Academy of Management Journal's editorial board. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2): 208–217.Google Scholar
Laband, D. N., & Piette, M.J. 1994. Favoritism versus search for good papers: Empirical evidence regarding the behavior of journal articles. Journal of Political Economy, 102(1): 194–203.Google Scholar
Latham, G. P. 2007. A speculative perspective on the transfer of behavior science findings to the workplace: ‘The times they are a-changin’. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5): 1027–1032.Google Scholar
MacDonald, S., & Kam, J. 2007. Ring a ring o'roses: Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 44(4): 640–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mcdoff, M. H. 2003. Editorial favoritism in economics? Southern Economic Journal, 70(2): 425–434.Google Scholar
Morgeson, F. P., Aguinis, H., Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. 2011. Special issue call for papers: Corporate social responsibility and human resource management/organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 64(1): 283–285.Google Scholar
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. 2003. Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3): 403–441.Google Scholar
Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R.J. 2010. Longitudinal research: The theoiy, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36(1): 94–120.Google Scholar
Rupp, D. E. 2011. Ethical issues faced by editors and reviewers. Management and Organization Review, 7(3): 481–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, A. M. 2008. How may I help you? Editing as sendee. In Baruch, Y., Konrad, A. M., Aguinis, H. & Starbuck, W. H. (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship: 27–38. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rynes, S. L., Bartunek, J. M., & Daft, R. L. 2001. Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2): 340–355.Google Scholar
Schmidt-Wilk, J. 2009. Review of Opening the Black Box of Editorship, by Yehuda Baruch, Alison M. Konrad, Herman Aguinis, and William Starbuck. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(1): 135–136.Google Scholar
Schminke, M. 2009. Editor's comments: The better angels of our nature — Ethics and integrity in the publishing process. Academy of Management Review, 34(4): 586–591.Google Scholar
Schminke, M., & Mitchell, M. 2003. From the editors: In the beginning. … Academy of Management Journal, 46(3): 279–282.Google Scholar
Shapiro, D. L., & Bartunek, J. 2008. Being an ethical editorial board member and editor: The integral role of earned trust. In Baruch, Y., Konrad, A. M., Aguinis, H. & Starbuck, W. H. (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship: 88–96. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Starbuck, W. H., Aguinis, H., Konrad, A. M., & Baruch, Y. 2008. Epilogue: Trade-offs in complex publishing environments. In Baruch, Y., Konrad, A. M., Aguinis, H. & Starbuck, W. H. (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship: 250–270. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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(5): 839–861.Google Scholar
Varley, P. (Ed.). 1998. The sweatshop quandary: Corporate responsibility on the global frontier. Washington, DC: Investor Responsibility Research Center.Google Scholar
Vince, R. 2009. Review of Opening the Black Box of Editorship, by Yehuda Baruch, Alison M. Konrad, Herman Aguinis, and William Starbuck. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(1): 136–138.Google Scholar
Wang, H.C., & Barney, J. B. 2006. Employee incentives to make firm-specific investments: Implications for resource based theories of corporate diversification. Academy of Management Review, 31(2): 466–476.Google Scholar
Wiseman, R. M., & Skilton, P. F. 1999. Divisions and differences: Exploring publication preferences and productivity across management. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8(3): 299–320.Google Scholar
Wright, T. A. 2011. And justice for all: Our research participants considered as valued stakeholders. Management and Organization Review, 7(3): 495–503.Google Scholar
Zedcck, S. 2008. Editing a top academic journal. In Baruch, Y., Konrad, A. M., Aguinis, H. & Starbuck, W. H. (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship: 145–156. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar