Commentary on Arthur Bedeian's 'The Manuscript Review Process: The Proper Roles of Authors, Referees, and Editors

摘要

By way of indicating how much (or how little) knowledge of my subject matter goes into this commentary, let me start with a review of what I bring to the table. My personal experience includes serving in the roles of author and referee on numerous occasions, plus a stint as editor of the Academy of Management Journal back when it contained articles in all four of the areas now covered by the array of Academy publications. More immediately relevant, I have attempted to prepare myself by doing considerable reading on the subject, starting with Arthur Bedeian's references, and then following these back in time to other sources. The net result, I believe, has been to give me a pretty good idea of what people are saying about the adequacy of the professional review process. Others might correct me here to point out that manuscripts are typically involved in a peer review process, however my impression is that peer evaluations often are not what take place; more on that later. This literature review led me to seek certain information from the Academy-from the president, the central office, and various editors; we have had a good deal of communication back and forth. In addition, I asked Art Bedeian if I might have copies of any reviews and editorial decisions he had received dealing with his manuscript, and he provided me with the feedback that had come to him after a submission to the Academy of Management Journal.