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

Management and organization studies commentary on how authors experience peer review of journal papers suggests that it can be an overly interventionist process which reduces the originality and coherence of eventual publications. In the literature on co-authorship, this argument is reversed. Here,...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Organization (London, England) Jg. 25; H. 1; S. 21 - 41
1. Verfasser: Brewis, Joanna
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: London, England SAGE Publications 01.01.2018
Sage Publications Ltd
Schlagworte:
Academic staff
Authorship
Cliques
Co authorship
Coherence
Collaboration
Ethnocentrism
Gift giving
Management
Organization studies
Organization theory
Peer review
Peers
Respondents
Sentence structure
Social privilege
Writers
journal papers
management and organization studies
peer review
Co-authorship
ISSN:1350-5084, 1461-7323
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Management and organization studies commentary on how authors experience peer review of journal papers suggests that it can be an overly interventionist process which reduces the originality and coherence of eventual publications. In the literature on co-authorship, 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 article, qualitative interviews with 12 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 over-rely on reviewers’ generosity. When they speak as authors or their proxies, it is characterized as reproducing disciplinary orthodoxy and ethnocentric exclusion, 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.
Bibliographie:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ISSN:1350-5084
1461-7323
DOI:10.1177/1350508417703472