Reviewing journal rankings and revisiting peer reviews: Editorial perspectives

• Main Authors: CLARK, Timothy Adrian Robert, WRIGHT, Mike
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2007
• Subjects: Business; Scholarly Publishing
• Online Access: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/6275; https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/lkcsb_research/article/7274/viewcontent/Clark_et_al_2007_Journal_of_Management_Studies.pdf
• Institution: Singapore Management University

In this article we respond to the key points made by Macdonald and Kam (2007) in relation to journal quality and the peer review process. Whilst we appreciate that their tone is intentionally provocative, the picture they present is one of unremitting gloom and reluctant acquiescence to a system out of control. It is as if the publication process has a series of self‐supporting logics that separate it from any notion of publishing in order to benefit the discipline through the advance of knowledge and understanding. From this perspective the publishing process and the consequent content of management journals are presented as the outcome of a series of ‘games’ that put more emphasis on where someone publishes than on what they publish and its subsequent impact. Such criticisms are not new in that they have been vigorously discussed for decades across a range of disciplines. Furthermore, many of these issues are raised whenever academics get together and discuss their experiences of journal publishing. Given the frustrations and vagaries of the review and publication process, such complaints are understandable. But they deserve further scrutiny.