The Ombudsman: Reaction to Armstrong's “Management Folklore and Management Science”

References

• Armstrong J. S. The ombudsman: Management folklore and management science—On portfolio planning, escalation bias, and such. Interfaces (1996) 26 4 28 42 Link, Google Scholar
• Armstrong J. S. Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation. Sci. Engrg. Ethics (1997) 3 1 63 84 . (Available from the author and on the website www-marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/faculty/armstrng.html) Google Scholar
• Armstrong J. S. Barriers to scientific contributions: The author's formula. Behavioral and Brain Sci. (1982) 5 2 197 199 Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bakanic V. , McPhail C. , Simon R. J. If at first you don't succeed: Review procedures for revised and resubmitted manuscripts. Amer. Sociologist (1990) 21 4 373 391 Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cicchetti D. V. The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submission: A cross disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sci. (1991) 14 March 119 186 Crossref, Google Scholar
• Franke R. H. , Edlund T. W. , Oster F. The development of strategic management: Journal quality and article impact. Strategic Management J. (1990) 11 243 253 Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jauch L. R. , Wall J. L. What they do when they get your manuscript: A survey of academy of management reviewer practices. Acad. Management J. (1989) 32 157 173 Crossref, Google Scholar
• King D. W. , McDonald D. D. , Roderer N. K. Scientific Journals in the United States: Their Production, Use, and Economics (1981) (Hutchison Ross, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania) Google Scholar
• Kupfersmid J. , Wonderly D. M. An Author's Guide to Publishing Better Articles in Better Journals in the Behavioral Sciences (1994) (Clinical Psychology Publishing Co., Brandon, Vermont) Google Scholar
• Lock S. , Smith J. What do peer reviewers do? J. Amer. Medical Assoc. (1990) 263 10 1341 1343 Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marsh H. W. , Ball S. The peer review process used to evaluate manuscripts submitted to academic journals: Interjudgmental reliability. J. Experiment. Ed. (1989) 57 2 151 169 Crossref, Google Scholar
• Munley P. H. , Sharkin B. , Gelso C. J. Reviewer ratings and agreement on manuscripts reviewed for the Journal Counseling Psychology . J. Counseling Psych. (1988) 35 2 198 202 Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shepherd G. B. Rejected: Leading Economists Ponder the Publication Process (1995) (Thomas Horton and Daughters, Sun Lakes, Arizona) Google Scholar
• Simon R. , Bakanic V. , McPhail C. Who complains to editors and what happens. Sociological Inquiry (1986) 56 259 271 Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slovic P. , MacPhillamy D. Dimensional commensurability and cue utilization in comparative judgment. Organ. Behavior and Human Performance (1974) 11 172 194 Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yankauer A. Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review? J. Amer. Medical Assoc. (1990) 263 1338 1340 Crossref, Google Scholar