Ensuring Manuscript Quality and Preserving Authorial Voice: The Balancing Act of Editors
基于作者作为作者、审稿人和高级编辑的经验，质疑当前期刊评审过程未必能保证稿件质量，主张作者应在修改中拥有更多话语权，并强调编辑在作者与审稿人之间的调解作用。
A commonly perceived role of the journal editor is that of a gatekeeper who guards against poor-quality manuscripts, flawed arguments, inappropriate research methods, or worse still, plagiarism or other kinds of academic misconduct (Aguinis & Vaschetto, 2011; Konrad, 2008). To achieve that objective, the editor relies on advice from knowledgeable reviewers and rejects manuscripts that fail to meet the quality standards of the journal. For manuscripts that manage to pass through several rounds of review and are eventually published, the authors are normally required to make changes based on the comments made by the editor and reviewers. Most authors would try to comply with the changes requested. A key assumption of the review process is that such changes are necessary for ensuring manuscript quality. However, this assumption is questionable (Tsang & Frey, 2007). Further, some of the changes may go against the authors’ will and obstruct the free expression of their ideas. That said, as journals should publish error-free manuscripts, here free expression of authors’ ideas only applies to ideas that are not erroneous. The term ‘error’ is used also to refer to confusions or ambiguities as authors should present not only flawless but also clear arguments. Idrawonmyexperienceasauthor,reviewer,andSeniorEditorofManagementand OrganizationReview(MOR),andarguethatthecurrentjournalreviewprocessdoesnot necessarily safeguard the quality of published manuscripts and that authors should be given more voice in deciding the changes they would like to make. Moreover, I emphasize the role of the editor in mediating this process of ‘give and take’ between authorsandreviewers.Thisrequiressomeadjustmentofthemindsetofreviewersin providingcommentsandofauthorsinrespondingtothesecomments.Asamediator betweenauthorsandreviewers,editorsplayanimportantroleinbalancingbetween ensuringmanuscriptqualityandpreservingauthorialvoice.Inbrief,aneffectiveand