Examining Marketing Journals' Publication Process and Reviewer Practices
- 1 October 2011
- journal article
- Published by Taylor & Francis Ltd in Marketing Education Review
- Vol. 21 (3), 251-274
- https://doi.org/10.2753/mer1052-8008210305
Abstract
This study examines reviewer practices at 11 marketing journals. The results for the top three journals are compared to eight comparable journals that are typically considered to be non-top-tier journals. The results suggest that the reviewers and the review processes at the top journals differ significantly from those of the non-top-tier journals. One of the most important findings is the degree to which the double-blind review process is being employed. The results may provide aspiring authors with a greater understanding and empathy of the review process, which in turn may allow them to be more successful with their article submissions.Keywords
This publication has 32 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Future of Double‐Blind Review in ManagementJournal of Management Studies, 2007
- Marketing Journal Coauthorships: An Empirical Analysis of Coauthor BehaviorJournal of Marketing Education, 2006
- The Competitive Advantage of Scholarly Journals: A Shared ResponsibilityJournal of Management, 2005
- The Structural Influence of Marketing Journals: A Citation Analysis of the Discipline and its Subareas over TimeJournal of Marketing, 2003
- Ethics and the Accounting Publishing Process: Author, Reviewer, and Editor IssuesJournal of Business Ethics, 1998
- Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovationScience and Engineering Ethics, 1997
- Evidence for the effectiveness of peer reviewScience and Engineering Ethics, 1997
- Meeting the Needs of New Statistical ResearchersStatistical Science, 1991
- A Note on Sadomasochism in the Review Process: I Hate When That HappensJournal of Marketing, 1986
- Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail SurveysJournal of Marketing Research, 1977