Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Drawing on a 28-item survey, this article reports the editorial experiences of 173 lead authors of articles published in theAcademy of Management Journal andAcademy of Management Review, over the period 1999 to 2001, to explore some relatively new dynamics that have changed the character of the manuscript review process and given rise to a mounting debate over the proper roles of authors, referees, and editors. Among the survey’s more disturbing findings, more than one third of the responding authors reported that recommended revisions in their manuscripts were based on an editor’s or referee’s personal preferences, and almost 25% indicated that in revising their manuscripts they had actually made changes they felt were incorrect.
Arthur G. Bedeian (Mon,) studied this question.