Perspective—Rigor and Relevance in Organization Studies: Idea Migration and Academic Journal Evolution

References

• Armstrong J. S. Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation. Sci. Engrg. Ethics (1997) 3:63–84Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldridge D. C., Floyd S. W., Markoczy L. Are managers from Mars and academicians from Venus? Toward an understanding of the relationship between academic quality and practical relevance. Strategic Management J. (2004) 25:1063–1074Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baumgartner H., Pieters R. The structural influence of marketing journals: A citation analysis of the discipline and its sub areas over time. J. Marketing (2003) 67:123–139Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bedeian A. G. The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors. J. Management Inquiry (2003) 12:331–338Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bedeian A. G. Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline. Acad. Management Learn. Educ. (2004) 3:198–216Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bennis W. G., O'Toole J. How business schools lost their way. Harvard Bus. Rev. (2005) 83(May):96–104Google Scholar
• Campanario J. M. Have referees rejected some of the most-cited papers of all times? J. Amer. Soc. Inform. Sci. (1996) 47:302–310Crossref, Google Scholar
• Daft R. L., Lewin A. Y. Can organizations studies begin to break out of the normal science straitjacket? An editorial. Organ. Sci. (1990) 1:1–9Link, Google Scholar
• Daft R. L., Lewin A. Y. Where are the theories for the “new” organizational forms? An editorial. Organ. Sci. (1993) 4:i–viGoogle Scholar
• Frey B. S. Publishing as prostitution? Choosing between one's own ideas and academic success. Public Choice (2003) 116:205–223Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gottfredson S. D. Evaluating psychological research reports: Dimensions, reliability, and correlates of quality judgments. Amer. Psychologist (1978) 33(10):920–934Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gottfredson D. M., Gottfredson S. D. Criminal justice and (reviewer) behavior: How to get papers published. Criminal Justice Behav. (1982) 9(3):259–272Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hammer M., Champy J.Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution (1993) (HarperCollins, New York) Google Scholar
• Hargens L. L., Herting J. R. Neglected considerations in the analysis of agreement among journal referees. Scientometrics (1990) 19:91–106Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson J. L. Journal influence in the field of management: An analysis using Salancik's index in a dependency network. Acad. Management J. (1994) 37:1392–1407Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levinthal D. A., March J. G. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management J. (1993) 14:95–112Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lewin A. Y., Peeters C. The top-line allure of offshoring. Harvard Bus. Rev. (2006) 84(3):22–24Google Scholar
• March J. G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. (1991) 2:71–87Link, Google Scholar
• March J. G. Parochialism in the evolution of a research community: The case of organization studies. Management Organ. Rev. (2004) 1:5–22Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller C. C. Peer review in the organizational and management sciences: Prevalence and effects of reviewer hostility, bias and dissensus. Acad. Management J. (2006) 49:425–431Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mintzberg H.Managers Not MBAs: A Hard Look at the Soft Practice of Managing and Management Development (2004) (Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco) Google Scholar
• Nylenna M., Riis P., Karlson Y. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts: Effects of referee characteristics and publication language. J. Amer. Medical Assoc. (1994) 272:149–151Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peters D. P., Ceci S. J. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavior Brain Sci. (1982) 5:187–255Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J., Fong C. T. The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Acad. Management Learning Educ. (2002) 1:75–95Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rousseeuw P. J. Why the wrong papers get published. Chance: New Direction Statist. Comput. (1991) 4(1):41–43Google Scholar
• Salancik G. R. An index of subgroup influence in dependency networks. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1986) 31:194–211Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schulz M. Pathways of relevance: Exploring inflows of knowledge into subunits of multinational corporations. Organ. Sci. (2003) 14:440–459Link, Google Scholar
• Starbuck W. H. Turning lemons into lemonade: Where is the value in peer reviews? J. Management Inquiry (2003) 12:344–351Crossref, Google Scholar
• Starbuck W. H. Why I stopped trying to understand the real world. Organ. Stud. (2004) 25:1233–1254Crossref, Google Scholar
• Starbuck W. H. How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organ. Sci. (2005) 2:180–200Link, Google Scholar
• Tellis G. J., Chandy R. K., Ackerman D. S. In search of diversity: The record of major marketing journals. J. Marketing Res. (1999) 36:120–131Crossref, Google Scholar
• Whitley R. The development of management studies as a fragmented adhocracy. Soc. Sci. Inform. (1984) 23:775–818Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wolff W. M. A study of criteria for journal manuscripts. Amer. Psychologist (1970) 25:636–639Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zammuto R. F., Connolly T. Coping with disciplinary fragmentation. Organ. Behavior Teaching Rev. (1984) 9:30–37Google Scholar
• Zammuto R. F., Griffith T. Has technology left the organization sciences? Implications for OS in an IT-intensive world. Organization Science Winter Conference (2004) Steamboat Springs, COGoogle Scholar