Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLindebaum, D
dc.contributor.authorJordan, PJ
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-02T23:31:19Z
dc.date.available2021-11-02T23:31:19Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.issn1350-5084
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/13505084211051047
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/409652
dc.description.abstractBased on our editorial experience, and acknowledging the regular editor grievances about reviewer disengagement at professional meeting and conferences, in this article we argue that the review system is in need of significant repair. We argue that this has emerged because an audit culture in academia and individual incentives (like reduced teaching loads or publication bonuses) have eroded the willingness of individuals to engage in the collective enterprise of peer-reviewing each others’ work on a quid pro quo basis. In response to this, we emphasise why it is unethical for potential reviewers to disengage from the review process, and outline the implications for our profession if colleagues publish more than they review. Designed as a political intervention in response to reviewer disengagement, we aim to ‘politicise’ the review process and its consequences for the sustainability of the scholarly community. We propose three pathways towards greater reviewer engagement: (i) senior scholars setting the right kind of ‘reviewer’ example; (ii) journals introducing recognition awards to foster a healthy reviewer progression path and (iii) universities and accreditation bodies moving to explicitly recognise reviewing in workload models and evaluations. While all three proposals have merit, the latter point is especially powerful in fostering reviewer engagement as it aligns individual and institutional goals in ‘measurable’ ways. In this way, ironically, the audit culture can be subverted to address the imbalance between individual and collective goals.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.languageen
dc.publisherSAGE Publications
dc.relation.ispartofjournalOrganization
dc.subject.fieldofresearchBusiness information systems
dc.subject.fieldofresearchOrganisation and management theory
dc.subject.fieldofresearchBusiness analytics
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode350303
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode350709
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode350301
dc.titlePublishing more than reviewing? Some ethical musings on the sustainability of the peer review process
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dcterms.bibliographicCitationLindebaum, D; Jordan, PJ, Publishing more than reviewing? Some ethical musings on the sustainability of the peer review process, Organization, 2021
dc.date.updated2021-10-27T01:33:58Z
dc.description.versionAccepted Manuscript (AM)
gro.description.notepublicThis publication has been entered in Griffith Research Online as an advanced online version.
gro.rights.copyrightLindebaum, D; Jordan, PJ, Publishing more than reviewing? Some ethical musings on the sustainability of the peer review process, Organization, 2021. Copyright 2021 The Authors. Reprinted by permission of SAGE Publications.
gro.hasfulltextFull Text
gro.griffith.authorJordan, Peter J.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record