Edited by Timothy Clark, Mike Wright and David J. Ketchen Jr.
As we have seen in Chapter 1, the review process can be quite lengthy and involve major changes to all aspects of a paper. As authors, Reviewers and editors on a paper we tend to only see our side of the process, or at best have a partial view of the other parties’ perspective through decision letters and authors’ responses. In this chapter we use a case study of a paper passing through the review process to interweave these different perspectives. One of us, Petra, was lead author on the paper, while the other, Mike, was the action editor. We present the process in the form of a first person dialogue between us, interspersed with the comments from the Reviewers. We conclude with some general reflections for the publishing process. Petra: As a new doctoral student, I interviewed several founders of technology-based ventures. I asked them what decisions were keeping them awake at night. Besides the question of whether and when to go global, another important issue emerged, namely the majority of these entrepreneurs were not sure how to develop their technologies into viable business models. They were faced with not only significant levels of technological uncertainty, but also with major market uncertainties. Overall, they stated that they did not have any insights or guidelines on how to create, deliver and capture value from their technologies.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.