Abstract
Rooted in altruism theory, the purpose of the double-blind academic journal peer-review process is to: (1) assess the quality of scientific research, (2) minimize the potential for nepotism, and; (3) advance the standards of research through high-quality, constructive feedback. However, considering the limited, if any, public recognition and monetary incentives that referees receive for reviewing manuscripts, academics are often reluctant to squander their limited time toward peer reviewing manuscripts. If they do accept such invitations, referees, at times, do not invest the appropriate time needed and, as a result, scantily review manuscripts, which adversely affects the quality of the review. In addition, given that authors’ identities are not blind to journal editors, there is the potential for bias toward well-established academics from highly-ranked institutions. As a result of these issues, the aims of the academic journal review process are currently not being fulfilled. To rectify these issues, several recommendations, namely: single-blind the editors, pay reviewers, standardize the review process, increase the acceptance standards at academic conferences, and provide constructive feedback, are offered.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
It is common for journal editors to publish the names of the reviewers on their editorial board; however, these reviewers are never attributed to the individual manuscripts that they review.
References
Agarwal, R., Echambadi, R., Franco, A. M., & Sarkar, M. B. (2006). Reap rewards: maximizing benefits from reviewer comments. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 191–196.
Annesley, T. M. (2012). Seven reasons not to be a peer reviewer - and why these reasons are wrong. Clinical Chemistry, 58(4), 677–679.
Ashkanasy, N. M. (2010). Publishing today is more difficult than ever. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 1–3.
Austin, A. E., & Rice, R. E. (1998). Making tenure viable: listening to early career faculty. The American Behavioral Scientist, 41(5), 736–754.
Azar, O. H. (2006). The academic review process: how can we make it more efficient? The American Economist, 50(1), 37–50.
Bailey, C. D., Hermanson, D. R., & Louwers, T. J. (2008). An examination of the peer review process in accounting journals. Journal of Accounting Education, 26, 55–72.
Bakanic, V., McPhail, C., & Simon, R. J. (1987). The manuscript review and decision-making process. American Sociological Review, 52(5), 631–642.
Beatty, S. E., Bandyopadhyay, S., Chae, M. S., & Tarasingh, P. S. (1992). A closer look at the manuscript reviewing in marketing. Journal of Marketing Education, 14(3), 3–15.
Bedeian, A. G. (2003). The manuscript review process. The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(4), 331–339.
Bell, R. L., & Chong, H. G. (2010). A caste and class among the relative frequency of faculty’s publications: a content analysis of refereed business journals. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 8(1), 1–26.
Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83(5), 96–104.
Bergh, D. (2002). From the editors. Deriving greater benefit from the reviewing process. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 633–636.
Bevan, D., & Corvellec, H. (2007). The impossibility of corporate ethics: for a Levinasian approach to managerial ethics. Business Ethics: A European Review, 16(3), 208–220.
Boellstorff, T. (2011). Submission and acceptance: where, why, and how to publish your article. American Anthropologist, 113(3), 383–388.
Boice, R., & Jones, F. (1984). Why academicians don’t write. The Journal of Higher Education, 55(5), 567–582.
Bornstein, R. F. (1990). Manuscript review in psychology: an alternative model. American Psychologist, 45, 672–673.
Campanario, J. M. (1998). Peer review for journals as it stands today - part 2. Science Communication, 19(4), 277–306.
Campbell, R. L. (2006). Altruism in Auguste Comte and Ayn Rand. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, 7(2), 357–369.
Chen, V. Z., & McMillan, C. (2012). Business schools in a changing world: who creates best practice and knowledge management? Global Business and Management Research, 4(3), 148–164.
Clark, T., & Wright, M. (2009). So, farewell then… reflections on editing the Journal of Management Studies. Journal of Management Studies, 46(1), 1–10.
Cohen, D. J. (2007). The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner publications in human resource management: reasons for the divide and concrete solutions for bridging the gap. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1013–1019.
Comte, A. (1858). The catechism. Positive religion. London, UK: John Chapman.
Corlett, J. A. (2005). Ethical issues in journal peer-review. Journal of Academic Ethics, 2, 355–366.
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Day, N. E. (2011). The silent majority: manuscript rejection and its impact on scholars. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(4), 704–718.
Emden, C., & Schubert, S. (1998). Manuscript reviewing: what reviewers have to say. Contemporary Nurse, 7, 117–124.
Eynon, R. (2014). Editorial. How to review a journal article: questions of quality, contribution, and appeal. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(2), 151–153.
Fischer, C. C. (2011). A value-added role for reviewers in enhancing the quality of published research. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 42(2), 226–237.
Greetman, B. (2006). Philosophy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hunt, S. D., & Vasquez-Parraga, A. Z. (1993). Organizational consequences, marketing ethics, and salesforce supervision. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(1), 78–91.
Ireland, R. D. (2008). From the editors. Revisiting AMJ’s revise-and-resubmit process. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1049–1050.
Jones, T. M., & Ryan, L. V. (1997). The link between ethical judgment and action in organizations. Organization Science, 8, 663–680.
Klingner, J. K., Scanlon, D., & Pressley, M. (2005). How to publish in scholarly journals. Educational Researcher, 34(8), 14–21.
Levinas, E. (1981). Otherwise than being – or beyond essence. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.
Lovejoy, T. I., Revenson, T. A., & France, C. R. (2011). Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: a primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 42(1), 1–13.
Machan, T. R. (2000). Egoism and benevolence. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, 1(2), 283–291.
MacInnis, D. (2003). Responsibilities of a good reviewer: lessons learned from kindergarten. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 344–345.
Maclagan, W. G. (1960). Respect for persons as a moral principle. Philosophy, 35(134), 193–217.
Meadows, A. (2015). Peer review - recognition wanted! The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved on February 24, 2015 from http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/01/08/peer-review-recognition-wanted/
Meier, K. J. (1997). Reforming the review process: right problem, wrong solution. Political Science & Politics, 30(3), 561–564.
Miller, C. C. (2006). From the editors. Peer review in the organizational and management sciences: prevalence and effects of reviewer hostility, bias, and dissensus. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 425–431.
Moizer, P. (2009). Publishing in accounting journals: a fair game? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34, 285–304.
Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (2008). Reviewers’ views on reviewing: an examination of the peer review process in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 19(3), 351–367.
Ortinau, D. J. (2011). Writing and publishing important scientific articles: a reviewer’s perspective. Journal of Business Research, 64, 150–156.
Pierson, D. J. (2004). The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication. Respiratory Care, 49(10), 1246–1553.
Rand, A. (1961). For the new intellectual. New York, NY: Random House.
Rand, A. (1964). The virtue of selfishness. London, UK: Penguin Group.
Sample, I. (2013). Nobel winner declares boycott of top science journals. The Guardian. Monday 9 December, 2013.
Samuelson, P. A. (1993). Altruism as a problem involving group versus individual selection in economics and biology. The American Economic Review, 83(2), 143–148.
Schminke, M. (2002). From the editors. Academy of Management Journal, 45(3), 487–490.
Schmitt, M. H. (1992). Editorial. The manuscript review process. Research in Nursing & Health, 15, 325–326.
Schultz, D. M. (2010). Are three heads better than two? How the number of reviewers and editor behavior affect the rejection rate. Scientometrics, 84, 277–292.
Simon, H. A. (1992). Altruism and economics. Eastern Economic Journal, 18(1), 73–83.
Snell, L., & Spencer, J. (2005). Reviewers’ perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal. Medical Education, 39, 90–97.
Starbuck, W. H. (2005). How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The Statistics of Academic Publication. Organization Science, 16(2), 180–200.
Summers, J. O. (2001). Guidelines for conducting research and publishing in marketing: from conceptualization through the review process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(4), 405–415.
Svozil, K. (2002). Censorship and the peer review system. Unpublished manuscript retrieved on February 27, 2015 from http://cds.cern.ch/record/576021
Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2012). Cracking open the black box of the manuscript review process: a look inside justice quarterly. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 23(4), 399–424.
Tsang, E. W. K. (2013). Is this referee my peer? A challenge to the peer-review process. Journal of Management Inquiry, 22, 166–173.
University of California Press (2015). University of California Press Expands into Open Access with Innovative Journal and Monograph Programs. Retrieved on February 24, 2015 from http://www.ucpress.edu/content/pr/collabra_luminos_012015.pdf
Valentine, D. P. (2005). From the editor. The scholarly journal review process: a call for transparency. Journal of Social Work Education, 41(1), 3–12.
Weber, R. (1999). The journal review process: a manifesto for change. Communications of AIS, 2(12), 1–24.
Wells, T., & Graafland, J. (2012). Adam Smith’s bourgeois virtues in competition. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(2), 319–350.
Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9(1), 66–100.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Overall, J. Stop Drinking the Kool-Aid: The Academic Journal Review Process in the Social Sciences Is Broken, Let’s Fix It. J Acad Ethics 13, 277–289 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-015-9237-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-015-9237-3