The other day I was flipping through a book on supply chain risk research that I was going to review when I noticed something odd with one of the chapters, it only had very few references, six to be exact, and three of them were simply working papers or conference presentations. For an academic work that is rather unusual, and upon closer inspection I found many more references in the text, but none of them had made it into the reference list. Presumably, as I later found out, because the non-listed references were in paragraphs that were lengthy verbatim copies of paragraphs from the listed references...so why list them again? Anyway, even these verbatim citations were not marked as citations or anyhow connected to the listed references. While I agree that content is what matters most, the form must be considered, too. And this form wasn't right.
One of the lynchpins of academic writing is proper referencing and proper citations, but this chapter seemd to lack it all. Interestingly, the other 18 chapters in the book held an impeccable academic standard, which begs the question: How could this article have slipped by editorial control? I myself have been subjected to vigorous oversight and inspection when I have submitted articles or book chapters for review. This one article however made me question the editorial craftsmanship of the editor of said book.
I am a full-time researcher, and I've read and reviewed many excellent books and papers in my field of research. Really good ones are hard to come by, but when I come across the bad ones, I can't help but stop and wonder, if this stuff made it, how come my stuff is rejected? Truly, academic publishing must have a Catch 22...</p></body>