Dear Colleagues,
Eduardo's note raises interesting points. I see useful
virtues in the process of visible reviewing, but
I will wait until the Bremen process yields results
before making up my own mind on how well the process
works at EAD.
The site and the system are good, but the process of
reviewing from abstracts makes this an incomplete test
of the idea of visible reviewing.
Perhaps we should take this up after all reviews are filed --
and after we see the actual finished papers.
Those who have followed past and recent notes on reviewing
may be interested in reading a small collection of five
articles I can share on reviewing standards and practices.
These are
Bieber, Michael. 2001. How to Review. Available from URL:
http://www-ec.njit.edu/~bieber/review.html. Accessed 2001 May 10.
Chilton, Stephen. "The Good Reviewer." Academe 85
(6, November-December 1999): 54-55. Available from
URL: http://www.d.umn.edu/~schilton/Articles/Reviewer.html.
Date accessed 2002 May 15.
Holbrook, Morris B. 1986. "A Note on Sadomasochism in the
Review Process: I Hate When That Happens." Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 50 (July 1986), 104-106.
Lee, Allen S. 1995. "Reviewing a Manuscript for Publication."
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 13, No. 1 (July 1995),
87-92.
Zmud, Bob. 1998. "Editor's Comments." Management Information
Systems Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 3, Sept. 1998. Available from
URL: http://www.misq.org/archivist/vol/no22/issue3/edstat.html.
Accessed 2001 May 10.
If you wish to read these, please send a note to
<[log in to unmask]>
With the word
Reviewing
In the Subject: header.
Best regards,
Ken
--
Ken Friedman
Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Leadership and Organizational Management
Norwegian School of Management
Design Research Center
Denmark's Design School
Faculty of Art, Media, and Design
Staffordshire University (Visiting)
+46 (46) 53.245 Telephone
email: [log in to unmask]
|