The Open UniversitySkip to content
 

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

Brewis, Joanna (2018). On interference, collegiality and co-authorship: Peer review of journal articles in management and organization studies. Organization, 25(1) pp. 21–41.

Full text available as:
[img]
Preview
PDF (Accepted Manuscript) - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (334kB) | Preview
DOI (Digital Object Identifier) Link: https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508417703472
Google Scholar: Look up in Google Scholar

Abstract

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.

Item Type: Journal Item
Copyright Holders: 2017 The Authors
ISSN: 1461-7323
Keywords: Co-authorship; journal papers; management and organization studies; peer review
Academic Unit/School: Faculty of Business and Law (FBL) > Business > Department for People and Organisations
Faculty of Business and Law (FBL) > Business
Faculty of Business and Law (FBL)
Related URLs:
Item ID: 59634
Depositing User: Ekaterina Kandelaki
Date Deposited: 14 Mar 2019 15:33
Last Modified: 22 Aug 2019 10:27
URI: http://oro.open.ac.uk/id/eprint/59634
Share this page:

Metrics

Altmetrics from Altmetric

Citations from Dimensions

Download history for this item

These details should be considered as only a guide to the number of downloads performed manually. Algorithmic methods have been applied in an attempt to remove automated downloads from the displayed statistics but no guarantee can be made as to the accuracy of the figures.

Actions (login may be required)

Policies | Disclaimer

© The Open University   contact the OU