Research

Does Blind Peer Review Require a Makeover?

December 10, 2015 1075

This piece was originally posted in Management INK, a SAGE blog highlighting top scholarship and catering to academics, researchers and practitioners in the management and business fields.

***

JME coverFor reviewers, anonymity can be both a good thing and a bad thing. While anonymous reviews allow reviewer’s freedom to evaluate submissions solely based on merit, anonymity also means that reviewers are left unrecognized for their thoughtful yet time-consuming work. It would seem that this trade-off has made reviewing less of an attractive opportunity for potential reviewers. In their article, “Harry Potter in the Academy: Reviewing and Our Own Cloak of Invisibility,” published in the current issue of Journal of Management Education, editors Kathy Lund Dean of Gustavus Adolphus College and Jeanie M. Forray of Western New England University offer a thought-provoking discussion of the flaws and merits of the blind review process, including why change is necessary to attract new reviewers. The article begs the question, is it possible that in the future, reviewers will cast off their invisibility cloaks, so to speak, and receive more recognition?

From the editorial:

We should not be surprised by the shrinking pool of reviewers for our conferences and publications. Steve Kerr explained for us decades ago how we focus our attention on that which is rewarded at the expense of other activities (Kerr, 1975). Perhaps because of Kerr’s article so many years ago and its continued power to frame reward systems theory and practice, we would expect management academics to, well, understand how not acknowledging the importance of reviewing will lead to precisely the dearth of reviewer pool we and other editors are experiencing, and change the reward system. That reviewing remains largely considered a service activity rather than a bona fide intellectual contribution is a serious issue for the continued health of our field. And the “blind” aspect of reviewing only exacerbates its invisibility—a reviewer devotes many hours, probably closer to a full day, to assessing a manuscript and to crafting a helpful, supportive review, and all that is usually noted on that person’s CV is a single bullet point telling others for which journals she or he serves as a reviewer. This must change, not only due to the inequity between those who author and those who review but also because of its gross distortion of how publication actually comes about.

You can read the rest of the editorial from Journal of Management Education by clicking here.


Related Articles

The Importance of Using Proper Research Citations to Encourage Trustworthy News Reporting
Impact
February 26, 2024

The Importance of Using Proper Research Citations to Encourage Trustworthy News Reporting

Read Now
Revolutionizing Management Research with Immersive Research Methods
Business and Management INK
February 26, 2024

Revolutionizing Management Research with Immersive Research Methods

Read Now
A Behavioral Scientist’s Take on the Dangers of Self-Censorship in Science
Interview
February 14, 2024

A Behavioral Scientist’s Take on the Dangers of Self-Censorship in Science

Read Now
Using Forensic Anthropology to Identify the Unknown Dead
Infrastructure
January 29, 2024

Using Forensic Anthropology to Identify the Unknown Dead

Read Now
Connecting Legislators and Researchers, Leads to Policies Based on Scientific Evidence

Connecting Legislators and Researchers, Leads to Policies Based on Scientific Evidence

The author’s team is developing ways to connect policymakers with university-based researchers – and studying what happens when these academics become the trusted sources, rather than those with special interests who stand to gain financially from various initiatives.

Read Now
The Risks Of Using Research-Based Evidence In Policymaking

The Risks Of Using Research-Based Evidence In Policymaking

With research-based evidence increasingly being seen in policy, we should acknowledge that there are risks that the research or ‘evidence’ used isn’t suitable or can be accidentally misused for a variety of reasons. 

Read Now
Our Academic-Industry ‘Research Sprints’ Can Solve Problems in 30 Days

Our Academic-Industry ‘Research Sprints’ Can Solve Problems in 30 Days

Inspired by ‘design sprints’ a Google where projects could create a prototype in five days, the authors started doing ‘research sprints’ in 2015.

Read Now
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments