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

Abstract

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.

Writing as skin: Negotiating the body in(to) learning about the managed self

“…The storied academic text: research participated in, written, edited, reviewed; multi-voiced in layering, foregrounding, backgrounding. Bodied co-authors shadowed in the writing process, writing back to us in creation – liberation or constraint (Brewis, 2018b). Wikipedia, that shifting, thin-skinned itch-to-scratch, states that ‘Parchment is affected by its environment and changes in humidity, which can cause buckling’.…”

Revisiting basics: theoretically-grounded interesting research that addresses challenges that matter

“…In cases where revisions are required, the feedback from reviewers and editorial guidance should in principle support the authors in developing a stronger paper. Brewis (2018) goes even further to suggest that reviewers and editors are de facto co-authors of the papers they evaluate 4 . There is some truth in this view as oftentimes manuscripts end up making a clearer and stronger contribution with the support of constructive comments from peer-reviewers.…”

Is Global Management Knowledge on the Way to Impoverishment?

“…Some argued that this power, rooted in the system of academic journal ranking (Willmott 2011), is the power not only to accept or reject a manuscript but also to infringe at will upon the intellectual integrity of the authors' submissions (Frey 2003). Brewis (2018) observed that the referees' comments and suggestions can be exceedingly lengthy and changing the manuscripts as per their recommendations can amount to writing a separate paper. In the same vein, others lamented that editorial teams tend not to provide an assessment of the worth of the manuscript but rather force the authors into re-writing the submission according to the referees' personal preferences (Driver 2007), expectations of formulaic conformity (Alvesson and Gabriel 2013), and prescribed presentation of evidence and arguments (Honig et al 2018).…”