The Reviewing Process: Is It Broken –
When: Friday, July 7, 2023, 16:00–17:30 CEST
Renate E. Meyer, WU Vienna, Austria
Bernard Forgues, emlyon business school, France
Nina Granqvist, Aalto University, Finland
Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner, Leiden University, The Netherlandsl
Dirk Lindebaum, Grenoble Ecole de Management, France
Monica Daniela Zaharie, Babeș-Bolyai University, Romania
As reviewers, we feel bombarded by review requests from journals. As editors, we sometimes feel hard pressed finding reviewers. As authors, we need reviews to grow our papers and see them through the reviewing process. Interestingly, many of us hold all of those roles at some point and experience such conflicting needs and associated emotions. This sub-plenary intends to discuss how we can find common grounds and make the process as smooth as possible.
A growing expectation to publish, along with an increase in the number of academic journals, is putting pressure on the reviewing
system. Indeed, we feel bombarded by journals requests to review. At the same time, in our role as editors, we sometimes feel
hard pressed finding reviewers willing to accept the task. And yet as authors, we all need reviews to grow our papers and
see them through the reviewing process. Interestingly, we're the same person in different roles over time, and we experience
these conflicting needs and associated emotions in a sort of (milder) version of schizophrenia.
We believe the topic to be of relevance to all EGOSians. Indeed, occasional discussions among colleagues or outbursts on social media provide anecdotal evidence that it hits a nerve! There is a need to explore the process and there is room for improvement. Our sub-plenary intends to discuss how we can find common grounds and make the process as smooth as possible.
Forgues, B., & Liarte, S. (2013): “Academic Publishing: Past and Future.” M@n@gement, 16 (5), 739–756.
Kaltenbrunner, W., Birch, K., & Amuchastegui, M. (2022): “Editorial Work and the Peer Review Economy of STS Journals.” Science, Technology, & Human Values, 47 (4), 670–697.
Lindebaum, D., & Jordan, P.J. (2021): “Publishing more than reviewing? Some ethical musings on the sustainability of the peer review process.” Organization, 30 (2), 396–406.
Zaharie, M.A., & Osoian, C.L. (2016): “Peer review motivation frames: A qualitative approach.” European Management Journal, 34 (1), 69–79.
Bernard Forgues is a Professor of Organization Theory and Head of STORM Research Center at emlyon business school in France. His research
has been widely published in highly numerated international ournals.
Nina Granqvist is an Associate Professor at the Aalto University School of Business, Finland. Her research has been widely published in highly numerated international journals.
Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner is a senior researcher at the Centre for Science & Technology Studies at Leiden University, The Netherlands. His main research interests are the politics of quantification in evaluation processes, academic curricula vitae as devices for comparison in peer review, and practices of publishing, reviewing, and editing academic literature.
Dirk Lindebaum is Senior Professor at Grenoble Ecole de Management, France. He is curious about ‘values’ as meta-theme in his research, particularly in relation to learning, theory building, technology and emotions at work. Dirk’s work regularly appears in journals of international distinction.
Renate E. Meyer is Professor and Head of the Institute for Organization Studies at WU Vienna, Austria, and holds a part-time appointment at Copenhagen Business School, Denmark. Currently, she is Co-Editor-in-Chief of the EGOS journal Organization Studies. Her research has been widely published in highly numerated international journals.
Monica Daniela Zaharie is an Associate Professor at Babeș-Bolyai University, Romania. Her research has been widely published in highly numerated international journals.