International Business Research: Coauthorship Patterns and Quality

Chan, Kam C.; Fung, Hung‐Gay; Leung, Wai Keung

doi:10.1080/08975930802194870

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They provide recommendations for undertaking science mapping to review and critique extant literature. Their argument is similar to those offered by Chan et al (2008), Debicki et al (2009) and Wynstra (2010), who also provide suggestions for future research on the basis of their network analyses.…”

Section: Co-authorship In Mossupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Some contributors use network analysis to interrogate co-authorship patterns in fields including consumer behaviour (Eaton et al, 1999), family business (Debicki et al, 2009), international business (Chan et al, 2008), marketing (Goldenberg et al, 2010) and service management (Martins et al, 2012). The same approach is used to explore these connections in individual journals, like Public Administration Review (Slack et al, 1996) the Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management (Yang et al, 2009) …”

Section: Co-authorship In Mosmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On interference, collegiality and co-authorship: Peer review of journal articles in management and organization studies

Brewis

2018

Organization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Management and organization studies commentary on how authors experience peer review of journal papers suggests it can be an overly interventionist process which reduces the originality and coherence of eventual publications. In the literature on coauthorship, this argument is reversed. Here free riders who do not contribute fully to research collaborations and the practice of gift authorships are problematized; and it is argued that everyone involved in writing a published paper should be rewarded with co-authorship. In this paper, qualitative interviews with twelve management and organization studies academics see respondents describing peer review as a transaction during which reviewers -and editors -actually co-author published papers. But their perspectives on this vary with the subject position from which they are speaking. When they speak as reviewers or editors, this co-authorship is depicted as a collegiate gift, a professional obligation or a process where authors might overrely on reviewers' generosity. When they speak as authors or their proxies, it is characterized as reproducing disciplinary orthodoxy and ethnocentric exclusion, 2 perpetuating disciplinary cliques, creating disorganized papers and constituting excessive interference with authorial privilege. These various perspectives on peer review deserve more attention in our empirical studies of academic labour. They also suggest we should reflect more on when, how and why we collaborate in our research, and on how much we should recognize additional co-authors on (or resist their input into) 'our' work.

show abstract

Section: Co-authorship In Mossupporting

confidence: 81%