IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zur/iewwpx/280.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas

Author

Listed:
  • Eric W. K. Tsang
  • Bruno S. Frey

Abstract

Recently, the problems associated with the existing journal review process aroused discussions from seasoned management researchers, who have also made useful suggestions for improving the process. To complement these suggestions, we propose a more radical change: a manuscript should be reviewed on an �as is� basis and its fate be determined in one round of review. The as-is review process shortens the time period from submission to final acceptance, reduces the workload of editors, referees and authors, provides frank author feedback to referees, and, most important, lets authors own all of the ideas in their publications.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric W. K. Tsang & Bruno S. Frey, 2006. "The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas," IEW - Working Papers 280, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    • Handle: RePEc:zur:iewwpx:280
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/52237/1/iewwp280.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruce Kogut & Udo Zander, 1992. "Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 383-397, August.
    2. Dag W. Aksnes, 2006. "Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(2), pages 169-185, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Glenn Ellison, 2002. "The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(5), pages 947-993, October.
    5. R. K. Pachauri & Sujata Gupta, 2002. "Editorial," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2-3), pages 127-128, September.
    6. William H. Starbuck, 2005. "How Much Better Are the Most-Prestigious Journals? The Statistics of Academic Publication," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 180-200, April.
    7. Engers, Maxim & Gans, Joshua S, 1998. "Why Referees Are Not Paid (Enough)," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1341-1349, December.
    8. R. Purdy, 2002. "Editorial," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 1-2, March.
    9. B Kogut & U Zander, 2003. "A memoir and reflection: knowledge and an evolutionary theory of the multinational firm 10 years later," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 34(6), pages 505-515, November.
    10. Juan Miguel Campanario, 1996. "Have referees rejected some of the most‐cited articles of all times?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 47(4), pages 302-310, April.
    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. Jens Prüfer & David Zetland, 2010. "An auction market for journal articles," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 379-403, December.
    2. Alfred Kieser, 2007. "Entwicklung von Organisationstheorien als Zeitgeistphänomen," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 59(6), pages 678-705, September.
    3. Oswald, Andrew J., 2008. "Can We Test for Bias in Scientific Peer-Review?," IZA Discussion Papers 3665, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    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. Moizer, Peter, 2009. "Publishing in accounting journals: A fair game?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 285-304, February.
    2. Justus Haucap & Tobias Hartwich & André Uhde, 2005. "Besonderheiten und Wettbewerbsprobleme des Marktes für wissenschaftliche Fachzeitschriften," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 74(3), pages 85-107.
    3. Seidl, Christian & Schmidt, Ulrich & Grösche, Peter, 2005. "The Performance of Peer Review and a Beauty Contest of Referee Processes of Economics Journals/," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 23, pages 505-551, Diciembre.
    4. João Faria & Rajeev Goel, 2010. "Returns to networking in academia," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 103-117, July.
    5. Jasper Brinkerink, 2023. "When Shooting for the Stars Becomes Aiming for Asterisks: P-Hacking in Family Business Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(2), pages 304-343, March.
    6. Salomón Kalmanovitz & Enrique López, 2003. "La Agricultura En Colombia Entre 1950 Y 2000," Borradores de Economia 2937, Banco de la Republica.
    7. Bruno Frey, 2005. "Problems with Publishing: Existing State and Solutions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 173-190, April.
    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. Besancenot, Damien & Vranceanu, Radu, 2008. "Can incentives for research harm research? A business schools' tale," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 1248-1265, June.
    10. Azar, Ofer H., 2008. "Evolution of social norms with heterogeneous preferences: A general model and an application to the academic review process," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(3-4), pages 420-435, March.
    11. Gabriela B. Christmann & Karsten Balgar & Nicole Mahlkow, 2014. "Local Constructions of Vulnerability and Resilience in the Context of Climate Change. A Comparison of Lübeck and Rostock," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-18, February.
    12. Oswald, Andrew J., 2015. "The Objective Measurement of World-Leading Research," IZA Discussion Papers 8829, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Thompson, Gary D. & Aradhyula, Satheesh V. & Frisvold, George B. & Tronstad, Russell, 2004. "Does Paying Referees Expedite Reviews?," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19988, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Justus Haucap & Nima Moshgbar & W. Benedikt Schmal, 2021. "The impact of the German 'DEAL' on competition in the academic publishing market," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 2027-2049, December.
    15. Roald A.A. Suurs & Marko P. Hekkert, 2008. "Cumulative causation in the formation of a technological innovation system: The case of biofuels in the Netherlands," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-04, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Feb 2008.
    16. João Ribeiro Butiam Có, 2010. "Representação e confinação de estruturas sociais na Guiné-Bissau: uma abordagem sobre conflitos e consensos," Working Papers wp112010, SOCIUS, Research Centre in Economic and Organisational Sociology at the School of Economics and Management (ISEG) of the University of Lisbon.
    17. Christoph Siemroth, 2024. "Economics Peer-Review: Problems, Recent Developments, and Reform Proposals," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 69(2), pages 241-258, October.
    18. Jens Prüfer & David Zetland, 2010. "An auction market for journal articles," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 379-403, December.
    19. Bruno S. Frey, "undated". "Publishing as Prostitution? Choosing Between One�s Own Ideas and Academic Failure," IEW - Working Papers 117, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    20. Westerhoff Frank H. & Wieland Cristian, 2004. "Spillover Dynamics of Central Bank Interventions," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 5(4), pages 435-450, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Journals; reviews; authors; submissions;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:zur:iewwpx:280. 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: Severin Oswald (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.