Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Proposed codification of ethicacy in the publication process

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The pressure for publication is ever present in academe. Rules for submission are elucidated by conferences, proceedings and journals for the benefit of authors; however, the rules for reviewers and editors are not so well established or consistent. This treatise examines examples of abuse of the editorial process and points to a need for formal recognition of rules for review. The manuscript culminates with proposed Codes of Ethics for researchers, referees and editors and suggestions for improvement of the peer review process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abramowitz, S. I., B. Gomes and C. V. Abramowitz: 1975, ‘Publish or Politic: Referce Bias in Manuscript Review’,Journal of Applied Social Psychology 5, pp. 187–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J. S.: 1982a, ‘The Ombudsman: Is Review by Peers as Fair as it Appears?’,Interfaces 12, pp. 62–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J. S.: 1982b, ‘Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors’,Journal of Forecasting 1, pp. 83–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, R. D.: 1991, ‘Statement of Editorial Policy’,American Psychologist 46(1), pp. 3–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freese, L.: 1979, ‘On Changing Some Role Relationships in the Editorial Review Process’,American Sociologist 14, pp. 231–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleser, L. J.: 1986, ‘Some Notes on Refereeing’,The American Statistician 40, pp. 310–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodstein, L. D. and K. L. Brazis: 1970, ‘Credibility of Psychologists: An Empirical Study’,Psychological Reports 27, pp. 835–838.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kupfersmid, J. and M. Fiala: 1991, ‘A Survey of Attitudes and Behaviors of Authors Who Publish in Psychology and Education Journals’,American Psychologist 46(3), pp. 249–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, M. J.: 1982, ‘Publication, Politics, and Scientific Progress’,Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, pp. 220–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manwell, C. and C. M. Baker: 1982, ‘Reform Peer Review: The Peters and Ceci Study in the Context of Other Current Studies of Scientific Evaluation’,Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, pp. 221–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markland, R. E.: 1989, ‘Musings of a Well-Traveled Editor’,Decision Sciences 20 (4), pp. vii-xiii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlman, D.: 1982, ‘Reviewer Bias: Do Peters and Ceci Protest Too Much?’,Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, pp. 231–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, D. P. and S. J. Ceci: 1982a, ‘Peer Review Practices of Psychological Journals: The Fate of Published Articles Submitted Again’,Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, pp. 187–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, D. P. and S. J. Ceci: 1982b, ‘Peer Review Research: Objections and Obligations’,Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, 246–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Remus, W.: 1977, ‘Strategies for a Publish and Perish World’,Interfaces 8, pp. 64–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Remus, W.: 1980, ‘Why Academic Journals are Unreadable: The Referees' Crucial Role’,Interfaces 10, pp. 97–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, C.: 1979, ‘Rejected’,New West 4, pp. 39–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, C.: 1982, ‘Rejecting Published Work: Similar Fate for Fiction’,Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, pp. 36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowney, J. A. and T. J. Zenisek: 1980, ‘Manuscript Characteristics Influencing Reviewers' Decisions’,Canadian Psychology 21, pp. 17–21.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business, Western Carolina University, 28723, Cullowhee, NC, USA

    Jo Ann Carland, James W. Carland & Carroll D. Aby Jr.

Authors
  1. Jo Ann Carland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James W. Carland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carroll D. Aby Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Dr. Jo Ann C. Carland is an Associate Professor at the School of Business, Western Carolina University and is the author or co-author of more than 80 papers and articles in entrepreneurship, MIS and teaching effectiveness. A CDP and co-founder of two microcomputer software development companies, she and her husband, with whom she co-authors regularly, have recently published a small business management textbook.

Dr. James W. Carland is an Associate Professor at the School of Business, Western Carolina University and has been primarily engaged in research concerning entrepreneurship. He is the author or co-author of more than 80 papers and articles. A CMA and CPA and former banker, he and his wife, with whom he co-authors regularly, have recently released a small business management textbook.

Dr. Carroll D. Aby is a Hardy M. Graham Distinguished Professor and School of Business Research Professor at the University of Tennessee at Martin and has 10 years of experience in the securities brokerage business. He has served on the boards of directors of several banks. He has numerous publications in finance, economics and banking and serves on the editorial review boards of several journals.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carland, J.A., Carland, J.W. & Aby, C.D. Proposed codification of ethicacy in the publication process. J Bus Ethics 11, 95–104 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00872316

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00872316

Keywords

Search

Navigation