Search

Academic publishing has faced numerous ethical challenges, but reviewer conflict of interest (COI) and potential associated coercive citation requests present an under-explored area of concern. Although we expect most reviewers to act ethically, the drive for academics to increase their citation counts creates a potential incentive for reviewers to seek citations of their own work, presenting a potential reviewer COI. With citation counts serving as an important part of most university and journal rankings, the integrity of the research review process has far-reaching implications. This study analyzes journals' communication to reviewers regarding coercive citation requests and COIs in general, with 205 survey responses from editors of major management or marketing journals, and an assessment of a randomly selected subset of 30 leading journal websites. The majority of journals did not discuss reviewer coercive citation requests or COIs, nor have any obvious processes to screen for it. We discuss the factors that foster an environment conducive to coercive citation requests and identify easily adoptable changes to review formats to address the problem. We also discuss the need to examine the triad of relationships among authors, reviewers, and editors, taking a systems approach. We encourage attention to balance of power and cocreation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hiring faculty is a challenge in the field of marketing. One important factor is a shortage of candidates. The problem is exacerbated, however, by an imperfect match between jobs and candidates. This study examines the homogeneity of academic jobs and candidates. Surveys were conducted with both parties. The results show that institutions and candidates are not homogenous. For example, hiring institutions differ in whether they are primarily seeking teaching or research ability and this is predictable depending on whether the institution is PhD granting or not. In addition, three types of job candidates are identified, each looking for something different--work environment, lifestyle, or research support. The lack of homogeneity can complicate the placement of candidates in jobs, but this depends on the distribution of these needs and the flexibility of both parties. Strategies to increase hiring success for hiring institutions are suggested, including assessing needs and competitive advantages. (Contains 4 tables.)

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.08.005 Byline: Michael D. Basil, Debra Z. Basil Keywords: Equilibrium theory; Matching; PhD supply; Demand; Academic hiring Abstract: The shortage of faculty is a critical problem facing business deans today. This shortage has important implications for teaching, research and academic governance. This study examines two explanations for this shortage - (1) disequilibrium between supply and demand and (2) the match between candidates and jobs - with an eye toward solving the shortage. Our study focuses on the field of marketing using several sources of data. Data suggest that both disequilibrium and mismatch are viable explanations. While it appears that an undersupply of PhDs is primarily responsible for the shortfall in faculty, there are several forces that may be limiting production. As a result, reducing mismatch may be the easier issue to address. The important implications for marketing and business are discussed including those around workload and faculty retention. Finally, implications that arise for business education, research, and faculty governance are discussed. Author Affiliation: University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Faculty of Management, 4401 University Drive, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1K 3M4 Article History: Received 2 March 2005; Accepted 25 August 2005