A review of editorial policies of leading journals and of research relevant to scientific journals revealed conflicts between "science" and "scientists." Owing to these conflicts, papers are often weak on objectivity and replicability. Furthermore, papers often fall short on importance,...

Recent research shows that journal reviewing practices are neither objective nor fair. I propose a procedure to increase the likelihood of publishing important papers. This will be tested by Interfaces for a year

Recently I completed a review of the empirical research on scientific journals (Armstrong 1982). This review provided evidence for an "author's formula," a set of rules that authors can use to increase the likelihood and speed of acceptance of their manuscripts. Authors should: (1) not pick an...

Honesty is vital to scientific work and, clearly, most scientists are honest. However, recent publicity about cases involving cheating, including cases of falsification of data and plagiarism, raises some questions: Is cheating a problem? Does it affect management science? Should anything be done?

Arguments on the best way to do research should be subjected to empirical research. Much has already been learned from recent research. My conclusion from this research is that those who call for more subjectivity in scientific research or reporting are looking at a major shortcoming in...

In important conflicts, people typically rely on experts' judgments to predict the decisions that adversaries will make. We compared the accuracy of 106 expert and 169 novice forecasts for eight real conflicts. The forecasts of experts using unaided judgment were little better than those of...

As HTM suggest, better measures would help But this is unlikely to occur, given the vast effort already devoted to this issue of assessing readability. I believe it is more important to study situations that will allow for further tests of the bafflegab hypothesis. Results from these studies...

Controversial empirical papers are expected to receive harsh treatment in peer review, but our survey indicates that such works occasionally get published, sometimes without much peer agreement. More can be done to encourage publication, however. We suggest ways to accomplish this, in...

Armstrong and Hubbard (1991), in a survey of editors of 20 psychology journals, found a bias against the publication of papers with controversial findings. The 16 editors who responded said that they received few papers with controversial findings during the last two years. When they did receive...

Research with the potential to produce controversial findings is important to progress in the sciences. But scientific innovators often meet with resistance from the scientific community. Much anecdotal evidence has been provided about the reception accorded to researchers who have obtained...