IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v26y2007i5p589-595.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Editor's Secrets

Author

Listed:
  • Steven M. Shugan

    () (Warrington College of Business, University of Florida, 201B Bryan Hall, P.O. Box 117155, Gainesville, Florida 32611)

Abstract

This editorial provides an overview of the editorial process at one peer-reviewed publication. The editorial starts by explaining the role of the players (the editors, the review team, the area editor). The editorial then covers each step in the review process, from how reviewers are selected to how authors should respond to different outcomes. The editorial ends by discussing citation metrics, appointments to the editorial board and copyrights. This article argues that (1) requesting more reviews yields a faster, more informative review process; (2) publishing more articles can raise citations per article; (3) for many submissions, some reviewers should evaluate procedures, whereas others should evaluate contribution; (4) reviewers should not micromanage revisions; (5) editors must, unfortunately, write overly cautious decision letters; and (6) it is important to reward reviewers with board appointments and published acknowledgments. Journals must be author-friendly to survive.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven M. Shugan, 2007. "The Editor's Secrets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 589-595, 09-10.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:26:y:2007:i:5:p:589-595
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1070.0309
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ofer H. Azar, 2007. "The Slowdown In First‐Response Times Of Economics Journals: Can It Be Beneficial?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(1), pages 179-187, January.
    2. Jehoshua Eliashberg & Anita Elberse & Mark A.A.M. Leenders, 2006. "The Motion Picture Industry: Critical Issues in Practice, Current Research, and New Research Directions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 638-661, 11-12.
    3. Daniel S. Hamermesh, 1994. "Facts and Myths about Refereeing," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 153-163, Winter.
    4. Mark Thornton, 2004. "Does Academic Publishing Pass the Real Market Test?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 120(1_2), pages 41-61, July.
    5. Joshua S. Gans & George B. Shepherd, 1994. "How Are the Mighty Fallen: Rejected Classic Articles by Leading Economists," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 165-179, Winter.
    6. Steven M. Shugan, 2004. "The Impact of Advancing Technology on Marketing and Academic Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 469-475.
    7. Marshall H. Medoff, 2003. "Editorial Favoritism in Economics?," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 70(2), pages 425-434, October.
    8. David N. Laband, 1990. "Is There Value-Added from the Review Process in Economics?: Preliminary Evidence from Authors," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 105(2), pages 341-352.
    9. Pradeep Chintagunta & Tülin Erdem & Peter E. Rossi & Michel Wedel, 2006. "Structural Modeling in Marketing: Review and Assessment," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 604-616, 11-12.
    10. Frey, Bruno S, 2003. "Publishing as Prostitution?--Choosing between One's Own Ideas and Academic Success," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 116(1-2), pages 205-223, July.
    11. Roland T. Rust & Tuck Siong Chung, 2006. "Marketing Models of Service and Relationships," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 560-580, 11-12.
    12. David Besanko & Jean-Pierre Dubé & Sachin Gupta, 2005. "Own-Brand and Cross-Brand Retail Pass-Through," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 123-137, July.
    13. Vikas Mittal & Eugene W. Anderson & Akin Sayrak & Pandu Tadikamalla, 2005. "Dual Emphasis and the Long-Term Financial Impact of Customer Satisfaction," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 544-555, August.
    14. Steven M. Shugan, 2003. "Editorial: Compartmentalized Reviews and Other Initiatives: Should Marketing Scientists Review Manuscripts in Consumer Behavior?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 151-160.
    15. Steven M. Shugan, 2006. "Editorial: Save Research—Abandon the Case Method of Teaching," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 109-115, 03-04.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sultan Orazbayev, 2017. "Sequential order as an extraneous factor in editorial decision," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1573-1592, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:26:y:2007:i:5:p:589-595. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Matthew Walls). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.