Abstract
Authors need to view reviewers’ comments not as judgments about the value of their work, but as good data about potential readers of their articles. The editorial review process does have deficiencies, the most serious being that reviewers should decide what articles warrant publication. “Peer review” should mean that reviewers and authors are indeed peers. However, editors typically act as if reviewers have more competence and more valid opinions than authors, and as if they themselves have the wisdom and knowledge to impose constraints on manuscripts. Empirical evidence indicates that editorial decisions incorporate bias and randomness. However, authors need to persuade potential readers to read their articles and that authors’ ideas and theories are plausible and useful. Authors must adapt their manuscripts to readers’ perceptual frameworks. Nevertheless, authors should remember that editors and reviewers are not superior and that the ultimate decisions about what is right must come from inside themselves.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
