How to get Published in the Best Management Journals
Show Less

How to get Published in the Best Management Journals

Edited by Timothy Clark, Mike Wright and David J. Ketchen Jr.

This much-anticipated book is a comprehensive guide to a successful publishing strategy. Written by top journal editors, it introduces the publishing process, resolves practical issues, encourages the right methods and offers tips for navigating the review process, understanding journals and publishing across disciplinary boundaries. As if that weren’t enough it includes key contributions on open access, publishing ethics, making use of peer review, special issues, sustaining a publications career, journal rankings and increasing your odds of publishing success. This will be a must read for anyone seeking to publish in top journals.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 7: Squeezing lemons to make fresh lemonade: how to extract useful value from peer reviews

William H. Starbuck


Many years ago, feedback from an editor induced me to formulate a rule that proved very valuable, so valuable that, after some years, I began to call it my Golden Rule. Other authors will find this rule useful. It states: No reviewer is ever wrong! This rule is valuable partly because it makes an assertion that seems patently ludicrous and bizarre. Obviously, any human being, even an editor or reviewer, may err. Sometimes editors or reviewers make comments that appear stupid or they recommend changes that are unethical or methodologically incorrect. Occasionally reviewers seem arrogant, disrespectful and even nasty. Therefore, to declare that reviewers’ comments are never wrong might appear irrational, but this apparent irrationality draws attention to a more fundamental truth: Editors and reviewers are only reporting what they thought when they read your paper and every editor and every reviewer is a potentially useful example from the population of potential readers. Indeed, a reviewer is likely to be a better source of information than a typical reader is in that a reviewer probably reads more carefully than a typical reader does and nearly every reviewer plows through an entire paper instead of giving up in disgust after a few pages. The central purpose of my Golden Rule is to remind me to regard reviewers’ comments not as judgments about the value of my research or the quality of my writing, but as data about potential readers of my paper.

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

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.