IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors


  • JS Armstrong

    (The Wharton School)


A review of editorial policies of leading journals and of research relevant to scientific journals revealed conflicts between 'science' and 'scientists.” Owing to these conflicts, papers are often weak on objectivity and replicability. Furthermore, papers often fall short on importance, competence, intelligibility, or efficiency. Suggestions were made for editorial policies such as: (1) structured guidelines for referees, (2) open peer review, (3) blind reviews, and (4) full disclosure of data and method. Of major importance, an author's “Note to Referees” (describing the hypotheses and design, but not the results) was suggested to improve the objectivity of the ratings of importance and competence. Also, recommendations are made to authors for improving contributions to science (such as the use of multiple hypotheses) and for promoting their careers (such as using complex methods and obtuse writing).

Suggested Citation

  • JS Armstrong, 2005. "Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors," General Economics and Teaching 0502059, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0502059
    Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 23

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. William R. King & Ralph H. Kilmann & Kenneth Sochats, 1978. "Designing Scientific Journals: Issues and Survey Results," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(7), pages 774-784, March.
    2. J. Scott Armstrong, 1979. "Advocacy and Objectivity in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 423-428, May.
    3. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Barriers to Scientific Contributions: The Author’s Formula," General Economics and Teaching 0502057, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Moravcsik, Michael J., 1974. "A refinement of extrinsic criteria for scientific choice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 88-97, April.
    5. Russell L. Ackoff, 1967. "Management Misinformation Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(4), pages 147-156, December.
    6. Siegfried, John J, 1970. "A First Lesson in Econometrics," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 78(6), pages 1378-1379, Nov.-Dec..
    7. Ian I. Mitroff, 1972. "The Myth of Objectivity OR Why Science Needs a New Psychology of Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(10), pages 613-618, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. JS Armstrong & Estella Bee Dagum & Robert Fildes & Spyros Makridakis, 2005. "Publishing Standards for Research in Forecasting (Editorial)," General Economics and Teaching 0502054, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. J. S. Armstrong, 2005. "Learner Responsibility in Management Education, or Ventures into Forbidden Research (with Comments)," General Economics and Teaching 0502012, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Is Review By Peers As Fair As It Appears?," General Economics and Teaching 0502058, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. J. Scott Armstrong, 1986. "The value of formal planning for strategic decisions: Reply," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(2), pages 183-185, March.
    5. JS Armstrong, 2005. "The Importance of Objectivity and Falsification in Management Science," General Economics and Teaching 0502055, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. JS Armstrong & Raymond Hubbard, 2005. "Does the Need for Agreement Among Reviewers Inhibit the Publication of Controversial Findings?," General Economics and Teaching 0502052, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item


    scientific journals; authors; research; editors;

    JEL classification:

    • A - General Economics and Teaching


    Access and download statistics


    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:wpa:wuwpgt:0502059. 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: (EconWPA). General contact details of provider: .

    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.