Bitte verwenden Sie diesen Link, um diese Publikation zu zitieren, oder auf sie als Internetquelle zu verweisen: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/268492 
Autor:innen: 
Erscheinungsjahr: 
2008
Quellenangabe: 
[Journal:] Academy of Management Learning & Education [ISSN:] 1944-9585 [Volume:] 7 [Issue:] 1 [Publisher:] Academy of Management [Place:] Briarcliff Manor, NY [Year:] 2008 [Pages:] 124-129
Verlag: 
Academy of Management, Briarcliff Manor, NY
Zusammenfassung: 
In this dialogue, the author depicts the journal peer review process as a high-stakes game involving three parties: editor, reviewer, and author. In light of a non-infrequent transposition of what should have been a constructive professional development process into a self-promotional social process, critiques of peer review have abounded, such as the "as-is" process recently recommended by Eric Tsang and Bruno Frey in this journal. While the "as-is" process highlights and potentially remedies some of the abuses of the system, there may be less radical options through professional education and development to preserve the critical developmental function of peer review.
Schlagwörter: 
Peer review
Professional autonomy
Professional publication
Academic freedom
Peer control
Professional development
JEL: 
J44
L84
M14
M53
DOI der veröffentlichten Version: 
Dokumentart: 
Article
Dokumentversion: 
Accepted Manuscript (Postprint)
Erscheint in der Sammlung:

Datei(en):
Datei
Größe
168.34 kB





Publikationen in EconStor sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.