Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:37:43.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ensuring Manuscript Quality and Preserving Authorial Voice: The Balancing Act of Editors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2015

Eric W. K. Tsang
Eric W. K. Tsang*
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Dallas, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorials on Reviewing
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , July 2014 , pp. 191 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © International Association for Chinese Management Research 2014

References

Aguinis, H., & Vaschetto, S. J. 2011. Editorial responsibility: Managing the publishing process to do good and do well. Management and Organization Review, 7(3): 407–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, X. 2011. Author ethical dilemmas in the research publication process. Management and Organization Review, 7(3): 423–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. 2008. Rigor and relevance in organization studies: Idea migration and academic journal evolution. Organization Science, 19(1): 177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, P. S. 2014. The developmental reviewer. Management and Organization Review, 10(2): 175–181.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. A. 2008. The case for an activist editorial model. In Baruch, Y., Konrad, A. M., Aguinis, H. & Starbuck, W. H. (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship: 124–133. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konrad, A. M. 2008. Knowledge creation and the journal editor’s role. In Baruch, Y., Konrad, A. M., Aguinis, H. & Starbuck, W. H. (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship: 3–15. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, L. A. 2014. Addressing reviewer comments as an integrative negotiation. Management and Organization Review, 10(2): 183–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, W.-M. 2002. Editorial power/authorial suffering. Research in Science Education, 32(2): 215–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starbuck, W. H. 2003. Turning lemons into lemonade: Where is the value in peer reviews? Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(4): 344–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsang, E. W. K., & Frey, B. S. 2007. The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6(1): 128–136.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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(12): 2550–2566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar