IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v67y2014i9p1967-1970.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reviewers are not perfect but could they try harder?

Author

Listed:
  • Min, Kyeong Sam

Abstract

Reviewers play a key role in the peer-review process. Serving a dual role, reviewers provide authors feedback to improve their manuscript's quality, and assist editors in choosing acceptable manuscripts for publication. Even though reviewers fully understand their dual roles, generally are knowledgeable about the subject, and typically are motivated to write constructive comments, they can still produce biased reviews. This article addresses two questions. Why do some reviewers provide more biased evaluations than others? How can those biases be reduced to improve the quality of reviews? Drawing on the judgment and decision making literature, this article identifies the sources of reviewer biases and proposes potential bias reduction strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Min, Kyeong Sam, 2014. "Reviewers are not perfect but could they try harder?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(9), pages 1967-1970.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:67:y:2014:i:9:p:1967-1970
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.11.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296313003615
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.11.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paula Caligiuri & David C Thomas, 2013. "From the Editors: How to write a high-quality review," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 44(6), pages 547-553, August.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Armstrong, J. Scott, 2003. "Discovery and communication of important marketing findings: Evidence and proposals," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 69-84, January.
    4. Langhe, Bart de & van Osselaer, Stijn M.J. & Wierenga, Berend, 2011. "The effects of process and outcome accountability on judgment process and performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 238-252, July.
    5. Steven M. Shugan, 2003. "Editorial: Defining Interesting Research Problems," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 1-15.
    6. Woodside, Arch G., 2009. "Journal and author impact metrics: An editorial," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 1-4, January.
    7. Ortinau, David J., 2011. "Writing and publishing important scientific articles: A reviewer's perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 150-156, February.
    8. Alvaro Cuervo-Cazurra & Paula Caligiuri & Ulf Andersson & Mary Yoko Brannen, 2013. "From the Editors: How to write articles that are relevant to practice," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 44(4), pages 285-289, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ortinau, David J., 2011. "Writing and publishing important scientific articles: A reviewer's perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 150-156, February.
    2. Alexandra Rausch & Alexander Brauneis, 2015. "It’s about how the task is set: the inclusion–exclusion effect and accountability in preprocessing management information," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 313-344, June.
    3. Aabo, Tom & Hanousek, Jan & Pantzalis, Christos & Park, Jung Chul, 2023. "CEO personality traits and corporate value implication of acquisitions," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 86-106.
    4. Bart de Langhe & Stefano Puntoni, 2015. "Bang for the Buck: Gain-Loss Ratio as a Driver of Judgment and Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1137-1163, May.
    5. Alain Verbeke & Mary Ann Glinow & Yadong Luo, 2017. "Becoming a great reviewer: Four actionable guidelines," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 48(1), pages 1-9, January.
    6. Geuens, Maggie, 2011. "Where does business research go from here? Food-for-thought on academic papers in business research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(10), pages 1104-1107, October.
    7. Emile, Renu, 2011. "Retrospection on the impact of Wallendorf and Brucks' "Introspection in consumer research: Implementation and implications"," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 194-198, February.
    8. Losecaat Vermeer, Annabel B. & Boksem, Maarten A.S. & Sanfey, Alan G., 2020. "Third-party decision-making under risk as a function of prior gains and losses," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    9. Mina Ličen & Sergeja Slapničar, 2022. "Can process accountability mitigate myopic biases? An experimental analysis," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 1-26, March.
    10. Thompson, Ann-Marie K., 2010. "Golder's historical method in research in marketing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(12), pages 1269-1272, December.
    11. Ravenswood, Katherine, 2011. "Eisenhardt's impact on theory in case study research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(7), pages 680-686, July.
    12. Khan, Jashim, 2011. "Validation in marketing experiments revisited," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(7), pages 687-692, July.
    13. Chong, Josephine L.L, 2010. "Evaluating the impact of Arnould and Wallendorf's (1994) market-oriented ethnography," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(12), pages 1295-1300, December.
    14. Wierenga, Berend, 2011. "Managerial decision making in marketing: The next research frontier," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 89-101.
    15. Seow Eng Ong & Davin Wang & Calvin Chua, 2023. "Disruptive Innovation and Real Estate Agency: The Disruptee Strikes Back," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 287-317, August.
    16. Herrmann, Tabea & Hübler, Olaf & Menkhoff, Lukas & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Allais for the poor," Kiel Working Papers 2036, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    17. Christiane Goodfellow & Dirk Schiereck & Steffen Wippler, 2013. "Are behavioural finance equity funds a superior investment? A note on fund performance and market efficiency," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 14(2), pages 111-119, April.
    18. Berg, Joyce E. & Rietz, Thomas A., 2019. "Longshots, overconfidence and efficiency on the Iowa Electronic Market," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 271-287.
    19. Reckers, Philip M.J. & Sanders, Debra L. & Roark, Stephen J., 1994. "The Influence of Ethical Attitudes on Taxpayer Compliance," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 47(4), pages 825-836, December.
    20. Bier, Vicki & Gutfraind, Alexander, 2019. "Risk analysis beyond vulnerability and resilience – characterizing the defensibility of critical systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(2), pages 626-636.

    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:eee:jbrese:v:67:y:2014:i:9:p:1967-1970. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.