Chapter 1 Resolving the ambivalences of editing a journal
Restricted access

The chapter reports and analyses the experience of about twenty years of involvement in the journal Organization Studies, including a period as editor-in-chief. One message is the necessity of paradigmatic neutrality in the allocation of reviewers and decision editors to submissions. Another is the fruitfulness of embedding the whole review and decision process in a network of professional relations. Furthermore, there is a need to recognize the potential of a submission and to persevere a review and decision process beyond schematic restrictions, e.g. to two or three revisions, where the potential is apparent to the discerning professional. A major impediment to acceptance is the failure of authors and reviewers to build a paper up to a salient point which can be summarized in two or three sentences. Authors can be trained in this. Such standards need to be kept up especially at a time when the temptation is to bureaucratize and anonymize journals, as part of the tendency to shift bulk electronically and symbolically contribute to publication ratings.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Other access options

Redeem Token

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institutional Access

Personal login

Log in with your Elgar Online account

Login with you Elgar account
Monograph Book