Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-lfgmx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-22T18:48:36.167Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ethical Issues Faced by Editors and Reviewers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Deborah E. Rupp*
Purdue University, USA


This essay discusses the sundry ethical considerations confronting editors and reviewers. To begin, journal hierarchy and manuscript lifecycles are reviewed. From there, ethical issues faced by individuals in various editorial roles, who interact with various parties, are discussed. Issues include making fair desk rejections, assigning reviewers ethically, refraining from the promotion of HARKing (hypothesizing after results are known), promoting a holistic view of validity, balancing scientific progress with journal success, providing developmental and actionable feedback, disclosing expertise parameters, and upholding the spirit of double-blind review.

Forum Articles
Copyright © International Association for Chinese Management Research 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Academy of Management. 2006. Code of ethics. [Last accessed 20 March 2011.] Available from URL: Google Scholar
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & American Council on Measurement in Education. 1999. Standards for educational and psychological tests. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
American Sociological Association. 1999. ASA Cod of Ethics. [Last accessed 20 March 2011.] Available from URL: Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. 1959. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2): 81105.Google Scholar
Chen, X. P. 2011. Author ethical dilemmas in the research publication process. Management and Organization Review, 7(3): 423432.Google Scholar
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. 1995. On being a scientist: Responsible conduct in research. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. H. 1955. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52: 281302.Google Scholar
Feldman, D.C. 2005. Writing and reviewing as sadomasochistic rituals. Journal of Management, 31(3): 325329.Google Scholar
Glick, W. H., Miller, C. C., & Cardinal, L. B. 2007. Making a life in the field of organization science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(7): 817835.Google Scholar
von Glinow, M. A., & Novelli, L. 1982. Ethical standards within organizational behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 25(2): 417436.Google Scholar
Hinkin, T. R. 1995. A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5): 967988.Google Scholar
Hinkin, T. R. 1998. A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1: 104121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollenbeck, J. R., & Mannor, M.J. 2007. Career success and weak paradigms: The role of activity, resiliency, and true scores. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(8): 933942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Association for Chinese Management Research. 2011. Commitment to excellence statement. Management and Organization Review, 7(1): 181184.Google Scholar
International Task Force on Assessment Center Guidelines. 2009. Guidelines and ethical considerations for assessment center operations. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17(3): 243253.Google Scholar
Kerr, N. L. 1998. HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3): 196217.Google Scholar
Landy, F. 1986. Stamp collecting versus science: Validation as hypothesis testing. American Psychologist, 41(11): 11831192.Google Scholar
Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. 2011. Working in research teams: Lessons from personal experience. Management and Organization Review, 7(3): 461469.Google Scholar
Lefkowitz, J. 2003. Ethics and values in industrial-organizational psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Associates.Google Scholar
Lefkowitz, J. 2008. To prosper, organizational psychology should expand its values to match the quality of its ethics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(4): 439453.Google Scholar
Lefkowitz, J. 2010. Ethics in industrial-organizational psychology. In Knapp, S., Creek, L. Van de, Gottlieb, M. & Handelsman, M. (Eds.), APA handbook of ethics in psychology: in press. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Leung, K. 2011. Presenting post hoc hypotheses as a priori: Ethical and theoretical issues. Management and Organization Review, 7(3): 471479.Google Scholar
Locke, E. A. 2007. The case for inductive theory building. Journal of Management, 33(6): 867890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowman, R. L. 2006. The ethical practice of psychology in organizations (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Messick, S. 1998. Test validity: A matter of consequence. Social Indicators Research, 45(1-3): 3544.Google Scholar
Messick, S. 2000. Consequences of test interpretation and use: The fusion of validity and values in psychological assessment. In Goffin, R. D. & Helmes, E. (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy: 320. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. 1994. Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Schuler, H. 1993. Social validity of selection situations: A concept and some empirical results. In Schuler, H., Farr, J. L., & Smith, M. (Eds.), Personnel selection and assessment: 1126. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. 2002. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton, Mifflin and Company.Google Scholar
Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2011. SIOP program reviewer rating guidelines. [Last accessed 20 March 2011.] Available from URL: Google Scholar