.png){kind=icon}
Return
The editor's secrets
.png){kind=icon}
PRE
AI
DOI：10.1287/mksc.1070.0309.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
This editorial provides an overview of the editorial process at one peer-reviewed publication. The editorial starts by explaining the role of the players (the editors, the review team, the area editor). The editorial then covers each step in the review process, from how reviewers are selected to how authors should respond to different outcomes. The editorial ends by discussing citation metrics, appointments to the editorial board and copyrights. This article argues that (1) requesting more reviews yields a faster, more informative review process; (2) publishing more articles can raise citations per article; (3) for many submissions, some reviewers should evaluate procedures, whereas others should evaluate contribution; (4) reviewers should not micromanage revisions; (5) editors must, unfortunately, write overly cautious decision letters; and (6) it is important to reward reviewers with board appointments and published acknowledgments. Journals must be author-friendly to survive.
Keywords:
marketing science
electronic journals
print journals
citations
peer review
referees
research streams
the review process
AI Summary
Key information extracted from the uploaded paper, including a brief overview, abstract, background, key highlights, visual analysis, and future outlook.
Journal
IF:
10.1
Papers:
3.4K
Citations:
2.2W
Organization
No organization information available
Cited Papers
Non-linear Physiology and Gene Expression Responses of Harmful Alga Heterosigma akashiwo to Rising CO2.png)
Protist
ProtistIF0
PREAI
ShareSaveShareSave
ShareSaveEffect of Ammonia Addition on the Growth of an AlO(OH) Film during Steam Coating ProcessCoatings
OAAI
CoatingsIF0
OAAIShareSaveShareSaveShareSaveShareSaveShareSave
View more