As its title indicates, the purpose of the present volume is to “open the black box of editorship.” My concerns about the integrity of the manuscript-review process as practiced by the management discipline’s leading journals are well documented. These concerns, as they relate to the review process as a means for judging the quality and, thus, the credibility of scientific papers submitted for publication have addressed the social construction of knowledge (Bedeian, 2004); the proper roles of editors, referees, and authors (Bedeian, 2003); and ghostwriting by editors and referees (Bedeian, 1996a & b). In the remarks that follow, I will briefly summarize a few of these concerns and extend my previous thoughts by commenting on reservations I have about how the review process has evolved over the past fifteen or so years and how it may be improved.
CITATION STYLE
Bedeian, A. G. (2008). Balancing Authorial Voice and Editorial Omniscience: The “It’s My Paper and I’ll Say What I Want To” versus “Ghostwriters in the Sky” Minuet. In Opening the Black Box of Editorship (pp. 134–142). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230582590_14
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.