IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v17y1998i4p297-300.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Last Reflections of the Editor

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Staelin

    (Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708-0120)

Abstract

Reflection of the editor-in-chief of about the complexity of the editorial and reviewing process.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Staelin, 1998. "Last Reflections of the Editor," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 297-300.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:17:y:1998:i:4:p:297-300
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.17.4.297
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.17.4.297
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.17.4.297?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    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. Preyas S. Desai, 2011. "Editorial--Marketing Science: Marketing and Science," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 1-3, 01-02.
    2. Steven M. Shugan, 2007. "—It's the Findings, Stupid, Not the Assumptions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 449-459, 07-08.
    3. Eric W. K. Tsang, 2009. "—Assumptions, Explanation, and Prediction in Marketing Science: “It's the Findings, Stupid, Not the Assumptions”," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 986-990, 09-10.
    4. Steven M. Shugan, 2007. "The Editor's Secrets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 589-595, 09-10.

    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. Medoff, Marshall H., 2003. "Collaboration and the quality of economics research," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(5), pages 597-608, October.
    2. Brogaard, Jonathan & Engelberg, Joseph & Parsons, Christopher A., 2014. "Networks and productivity: Causal evidence from editor rotations," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 251-270.
    3. Hendrik P. van Dalen, 1999. "The Golden Age of Nobel Economists," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 43(2), pages 19-35, October.
    4. Hendrik P. van Dalen, 2003. "Pluralism in Economics: A Public Good or a Public Bad?," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 03-034/1, Tinbergen Institute, revised 18 May 2004.
    5. Bruno Frey, 2005. "Problems with Publishing: Existing State and Solutions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 173-190, April.
    6. Dell'Anno, Roberto & Caferra, Rocco & Morone, Andrea, 2020. "A “Trojan Horse” in the peer-review process of fee-charging economic journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3).
    7. Daoud, Adel & Kohl, Sebastian, 2016. "How much do sociologists write about economic topics? Using big data to test some conventional views in economic sociology, 1890 to 2014," MPIfG Discussion Paper 16/7, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    8. Ofer H. Azar, 2006. "The Academic Review Process: How Can We Make it More Efficient?," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 50(1), pages 37-50, March.
    9. Lyudmyla Shkulipa, 2021. "Evaluation of accounting journals by coverage of accounting topics in 2018–2019," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7251-7327, September.
    10. Jussi Heikkilä & Timo Ali-Vehmas & Julius Rissanen, 2021. "The Link Between Standardization and Economic Growth: A Bibliometric Analysis," International Journal of Standardization Research (IJSR), IGI Global, vol. 19(1), pages 1-25, January.
    11. KRAPF, Matthias & SCHLÄPFER, Jörg, 2012. "How Nobel Laureates Would Perform In The Handelsblatt Ranking," Regional and Sectoral Economic Studies, Euro-American Association of Economic Development, vol. 12(3).
    12. Krishna Muniyoor, 2022. "The Structure of Scholarly Publishing: a Case of Economics Research in India," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 13(3), pages 1801-1818, September.
    13. Damien Besancenot & Abdelghani Maddi, 2019. "Should citations be weighted to assess the influence of an academic article?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 435(1), pages 435-445.
    14. William E. Becker & Suzanne R. Becker, 2011. "Potpourri: Reflections from Husband/Wife Academic Editors," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 56(2), pages 74-84, November.
    15. Takashi Negishi, 2005. "Michio Morishima and history: an obituary," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(3), pages 553-557.
    16. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Quality Control Versus Innovation in Research on Marketing," General Economics and Teaching 0502050, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Louis Mesnard, 2010. "On Hochberg et al.’s “The tragedy of the reviewer commons”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 903-917, September.
    18. Popov, Sergey V, 2022. "Tactical Refereeing and Signaling by Publishing," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2022/14, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section.
    19. Ruth Ben-Yashar & Shmuel Nitzan, 2001. "Are Referees Sufficiently Informed About The Editor'S Practice?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 1-11, August.
    20. Marc Orlitzky, 2011. "Institutionalized dualism: statistical significance testing as myth and ceremony," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 47-77, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:17:y:1998:i:4:p:297-300. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.