• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>British Journal of Management >Strategies for Revising and Resubmitting Papers to Refereed Journals
【24h】

Strategies for Revising and Resubmitting Papers to Refereed Journals

机译：修改和重新提交参考期刊论文的策略

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

We explored what authors allegedly do and why, when invited to revise and resubmit manuscripts to refereed journals. Based on responses from 249 business and management scholars from the UK and USA, we found that authors preferred to resubmit to the original journal, whether the required revision was minor or major, and that under certain circumstances other options would be considered: submitting to alternative journals, sometimes without revising at all; discarding the paper; or challenging the editor. Experience in publishing was found to be an important moderator. As to 'why' they purport to do so, a classification of qualitative responses yielded a matrix of four optional strategies, grouped along two axes: rationale (instrumental reasoning versus ethical reasoning) and agency (individually centred reasoning versus community-centred reasoning). Most responses were located in the instrumental/self-centred quadrant.
机译：我们探究了据称作者的行为以及为何应邀修改和重新提交稿件到参考期刊。根据来自英国和美国的249名商业和管理学者的答复，我们发现作者更愿意重新提交原始期刊，无论要求的修订是次要的还是主要的，并且在某些情况下都将考虑其他选择：提交替代方案期刊，有时根本没有修改;丢掉纸;或挑战编辑器。发现出版经验是重要的主持人。至于他们为什么要这样做，定性反应的分类产生了四个可选策略的矩阵，沿着两个轴进行分组：基本原理（工具推理与道德推理）和代理（个人中心推理与以社区为中心的推理）。大多数答复位于工具/以自我为中心的象限。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号