The Editor's Secrets

References

• Armstrong J. S. Advocacy and objectivity in science. Management Sci. (1979) 25(5):423–428Link, Google Scholar
• Azar O. H. The academic review process: How can we make it more efficient? Amer. Economist (2006) 50(1):37–50Crossref, Google Scholar
• Azar O. H. The slowdown in first-response times of economics journals: Can it be beneficial? Econom. Inquiry (2007) 45(1):179–187Crossref, Google Scholar
• Azbel M. Could Columbus have passed peer review? Phys. Today (1993) 46(6):13–15Crossref, Google Scholar
• Besanko D., Dubé J.-P., Gupta S. Own-brand and cross-brand retail pass-through. Marketing Sci. (2005) 24(1):123–137Link, Google Scholar
• Brown G. H. Brand loyalty—Fact or fiction? Advertising Age (1952) 23(June):53–55Google Scholar
• Chintagunta P., Erdem T., Rossi P. E., Wedel M. Structural modeling in marketing: Review and assessment. Marketing Sci. (2006) 25(6):604–616Link, Google Scholar
• Clark A., Singleton-Jackson J., Newsom R. Journal editing: Managing the peer review process for timely publication of articles. Publishing Res. Quart. (2000) 16(3):62–71Crossref, Google Scholar
• Daniel H. D.Guardians of Science: Fairness and Reliability of Peer Review (1993) (VCH Publishers, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eliashberg J., Elberse A., Leenders M. A. A. M. The motion picture industry: Critical issues in practice, current research, and new research directions. Marketing Sci. (2006) 25(6):638–661Link, Google Scholar
• Ewing M. Confessions of an advertising reviewer. Internat. J. Advertising (2006) 25(2):250–252Google Scholar
• Frey B. S. Publishing as prostitution?—Choosing between one's own ideas and academic success. Public Choice (2003) 116(1-2):205–223Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gans J. S., Shepherd G. B. How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles by leading economists. J. Econom. Perspect. (1994) 8(1):165–179Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilmore A., Carson D., Perry C. Academic publishing; Best practice for editors, guest editors, authors, and reviewers. Eur. Bus. Rev. (2006) 18(6):468–478Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hamermesh D. S. Facts and myths about refereeing. J. Econom. Perspect. (1994) 8(1):153–163Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laband D. N. Is there value-added from the review process in economics? Quart. J. Econom. (1990) 105(2):341–352Crossref, Google Scholar
• McFadden D., Zarembka P. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics (1974) (Academic Press, New York) 105–142Google Scholar
• Medoff M. H. Editorial favoritism in economics? Southern Econom. J. (2003) 70(2):425–434Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mittal V., Anderson E. W., Sayrak A., Tadikamalla P. Dual emphasis and the long-term financial impact of customer satisfaction. Marketing Sci. (2005) 24(4):544–555Link, Google Scholar
• Mizzaro S. Quality control in scholarly publishing: A new proposal. J. Amer. Soc. Inform. Sci. Tech. (2003) 54(11):989–1005Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peters D. P., Ceci S. J. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral Brain Sci. (1982) 5(2):187–195Crossref, Google Scholar
• Priem R. L. What happens when special issues just aren't “special” anymore? J. Management Inquiry (2006) 15(4):383–388Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rodriguez M. A., Bollen J., Van de Sompel H. The convergence of digital libraries and the peer-review process. J. Inform. Sci. (2006) 32(2):149–150Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rust R. T., Chung T. S. Marketing models of service and relationships. Marketing Sci. (2006) 25(6):560–580Link, Google Scholar
• Scott A. Peer review and the relevance of science. Futures (2007) 39(7):827–845Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shepherd G. B.Rejected: Leading Economists Ponder the Publication Process (1995) (Thomas Horton & Daughters, Sun Lakes, AZ) Google Scholar
• Shugan S. M. Editorial: The mission of Marketing Science. Marketing Sci. (2002) 21(1):1–13Link, Google Scholar
• Shugan S. M. Editorial: Compartmentalized reviews and other initiatives: Should marketing scientists review manuscripts in consumer behavior? Marketing Sci. (2003) 22(2):151–160Link, Google Scholar
• Shugan S. M. The impact of advancing technology on marketing and academic research. Marketing Sci. (2004) 23(4):469–475Link, Google Scholar
• Shugan S. M. Editorial: Brand loyalty programs: Are they shams? Marketing Sci. (2005) 24(2):185–193Link, Google Scholar
• Shugan S. M. Editorial: Save research—Abandon the case method of teaching. Marketing Sci. (2006) 25(2):109–115Link, Google Scholar
• Shugan S. M. It's the findings, stupid, not the assumptions. Marketing Sci. (2007) 26(4):449–459Link, Google Scholar
• Staelin R. Last reflections of the editor. Marketing Sci. (1998) 17(4):297–300Link, Google Scholar
• Starbuck W. H. How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organ. Sci. (2005) 16(2):180–202Link, Google Scholar
• Stewart D. W. Getting published: Reflections of an old editor. J. Marketing (2002) 66(4):1–6Crossref, Google Scholar
• Theoharakis V., Hirst A. Perceptual differences of marketing journals: A worldwide perspective. Marketing Lett. (2002) 13(4):389–402Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thornton M. Does academic publishing pass the real market test? Public Choice (2004) 120:41–61Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tsang E. W. K., Frey B. S. The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas. Acad. Management Learning Education (2007) 6(1):128–136Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tucker A. W. A two-person dilemma. (1950) . Unpublished, Stanford University, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
• Tucker A. W. The mathematics of Tucker: A sampler. Two-Year College Math. J. (1983) 14(3):228–232Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weller A. C. Editorial peer review for electronic journals: Current issues and emerging models. J. Amer. Soc. Inform. Sci. Tech. (2000) 51(14):1328–1333Crossref, Google Scholar