The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas
AbstractRecently, the problems associated with the existing journal review process aroused discussions from seasoned management researchers, who have also made useful suggestions for improving the process. To complement these suggestions, we propose a more radical change: a manuscript should be reviewed on an ?as is? basis and its fate be determined in one round of review. The as-is review process shortens the time period from submission to final acceptance, reduces the workload of editors, referees and authors, provides frank author feedback to referees, and, most important, lets authors own all of the ideas in their publications.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA) in its series CREMA Working Paper Series with number 2006-09.
Date of creation: Mar 2006
Date of revision:
Journals; reviews; authors; submissions;
Other versions of this item:
- Eric W. K. Tsang & Bruno S. Frey, 2006. "The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas," IEW - Working Papers 280, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
- Benno Torgler, & Sascha L. Schmidt & Bruno S. Frey, 2006. "The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas," IEW - Working Papers 282, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
- Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2006-05-06 (All new papers)
- NEP-CBE-2006-05-06 (Cognitive & Behavioural Economics)
- NEP-SOG-2006-05-06 (Sociology of Economics)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Engers, Maxim & Gans, Joshua S, 1998. "Why Referees Are Not Paid (Enough)," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1341-49, December.
- B Kogut & U Zander, 2003. "A memoir and reflection: knowledge and an evolutionary theory of the multinational firm 10 years later," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 34(6), pages 505-515, November.
- Glenn Ellison, 2000.
"The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process,"
NBER Working Papers
7804, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Oswald, Andrew J., 2008. "Can We Test for Bias in Scientific Peer-Review?," IZA Discussion Papers 3665, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Anna-Lea Werlen).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.