Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stop Drinking the Kool-Aid: The Academic Journal Review Process in the Social Sciences Is Broken, Let’s Fix It

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

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.

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

Notes

  1. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Annesley, T. M. (2012). Seven reasons not to be a peer reviewer - and why these reasons are wrong. Clinical Chemistry, 58(4), 677–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashkanasy, N. M. (2010). Publishing today is more difficult than ever. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, A. E., & Rice, R. E. (1998). Making tenure viable: listening to early career faculty. The American Behavioral Scientist, 41(5), 736–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azar, O. H. (2006). The academic review process: how can we make it more efficient? The American Economist, 50(1), 37–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakanic, V., McPhail, C., & Simon, R. J. (1987). The manuscript review and decision-making process. American Sociological Review, 52(5), 631–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83(5), 96–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergh, D. (2002). From the editors. Deriving greater benefit from the reviewing process. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 633–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boellstorff, T. (2011). Submission and acceptance: where, why, and how to publish your article. American Anthropologist, 113(3), 383–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boice, R., & Jones, F. (1984). Why academicians don’t write. The Journal of Higher Education, 55(5), 567–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, R. F. (1990). Manuscript review in psychology: an alternative model. American Psychologist, 45, 672–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campanario, J. M. (1998). Peer review for journals as it stands today - part 2. Science Communication, 19(4), 277–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, R. L. (2006). Altruism in Auguste Comte and Ayn Rand. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, 7(2), 357–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, T., & Wright, M. (2009). So, farewell then… reflections on editing the Journal of Management Studies. Journal of Management Studies, 46(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comte, A. (1858). The catechism. Positive religion. London, UK: John Chapman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corlett, J. A. (2005). Ethical issues in journal peer-review. Journal of Academic Ethics, 2, 355–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, N. E. (2011). The silent majority: manuscript rejection and its impact on scholars. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(4), 704–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emden, C., & Schubert, S. (1998). Manuscript reviewing: what reviewers have to say. Contemporary Nurse, 7, 117–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eynon, R. (2014). Editorial. How to review a journal article: questions of quality, contribution, and appeal. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(2), 151–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greetman, B. (2006). Philosophy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Vasquez-Parraga, A. Z. (1993). Organizational consequences, marketing ethics, and salesforce supervision. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(1), 78–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ireland, R. D. (2008). From the editors. Revisiting AMJ’s revise-and-resubmit process. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1049–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M., & Ryan, L. V. (1997). The link between ethical judgment and action in organizations. Organization Science, 8, 663–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klingner, J. K., Scanlon, D., & Pressley, M. (2005). How to publish in scholarly journals. Educational Researcher, 34(8), 14–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinas, E. (1981). Otherwise than being – or beyond essence. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machan, T. R. (2000). Egoism and benevolence. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, 1(2), 283–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacInnis, D. (2003). Responsibilities of a good reviewer: lessons learned from kindergarten. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 344–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maclagan, W. G. (1960). Respect for persons as a moral principle. Philosophy, 35(134), 193–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moizer, P. (2009). Publishing in accounting journals: a fair game? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34, 285–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortinau, D. J. (2011). Writing and publishing important scientific articles: a reviewer’s perspective. Journal of Business Research, 64, 150–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierson, D. J. (2004). The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication. Respiratory Care, 49(10), 1246–1553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rand, A. (1961). For the new intellectual. New York, NY: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rand, A. (1964). The virtue of selfishness. London, UK: Penguin Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schminke, M. (2002). From the editors. Academy of Management Journal, 45(3), 487–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M. H. (1992). Editorial. The manuscript review process. Research in Nursing & Health, 15, 325–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1992). Altruism and economics. Eastern Economic Journal, 18(1), 73–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snell, L., & Spencer, J. (2005). Reviewers’ perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal. Medical Education, 39, 90–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starbuck, W. H. (2005). How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The Statistics of Academic Publication. Organization Science, 16(2), 180–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsang, E. W. K. (2013). Is this referee my peer? A challenge to the peer-review process. Journal of Management Inquiry, 22, 166–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, R. (1999). The journal review process: a manifesto for change. Communications of AIS, 2(12), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, T., & Graafland, J. (2012). Adam Smith’s bourgeois virtues in competition. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(2), 319–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9(1), 66–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business, Nipissing University, North Bay, ON, Canada

    Jeffrey Overall

Authors
  1. Jeffrey Overall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey Overall.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-015-9237-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation