Revise and Resubmit?: Peer Reviewing Business Historical Research

Christina Lubinski; Stephanie Decker; Niall MacKenzie

doi:10.1080/00076791.2024.2325610

Revise and Resubmit? Peer Reviewing Business Historical Research

Christina Lubinski^*, Stephanie Decker, Niall MacKenzie

^*Corresponding author for this work

Strategy and International Business

Research output: Contribution to journal › Editorial

Abstract

Peer review in Business History has benefitted from the insights of over 550 expert reviewers over the past three years. In this editorial, we contextualise the journal’s peer review process historically and in the available literature. We discuss some of the challenges of the double-blind review system, including securing reviewer engagement amidst time constraints and publication pressure, the dark sides of anonymisation, and the role of bias, values, and interdisciplinarity in research evaluations. Based on these reflections, we furnish some concrete guidance for reviewers on how to approach business historical research. We end by contemplating the future landscape of peer review and opening a conversation about review standards and reviewer education in the field of business history. Is peer review ripe for revision and resubmit?

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	773-792
Number of pages	20
Journal	Business History
Volume	66
Issue number	4
Early online date	14 Mar 2024
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2024.2325610
Publication status	Published - 22 Jun 2024

Keywords

Peer review
academic publishing
professions
Business History

ASJC Scopus subject areas

History
General Business,Management and Accounting

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1080/00076791.2024.2325610Licence: None: All rights reserved

Embargoed Document

LubinskiC2024Revise
Accepted author manuscript, 1.24 MB
Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)
Embargo ends: 14/09/25

Business History (Journal)
Decker, S. (Editor-in-Chief)
1 Jan 2019 → 31 Dec 2024
Activity: Publication peer-review and editorial work › Editorial board of a journal

Cite this

@article{b25c2d4bec224b7bb0c6e640edc3583e,

title = "Revise and Resubmit?: Peer Reviewing Business Historical Research",

abstract = "Peer review in Business History has benefitted from the insights of over 550 expert reviewers over the past three years. In this editorial, we contextualise the journal{\textquoteright}s peer review process historically and in the available literature. We discuss some of the challenges of the double-blind review system, including securing reviewer engagement amidst time constraints and publication pressure, the dark sides of anonymisation, and the role of bias, values, and interdisciplinarity in research evaluations. Based on these reflections, we furnish some concrete guidance for reviewers on how to approach business historical research. We end by contemplating the future landscape of peer review and opening a conversation about review standards and reviewer education in the field of business history. Is peer review ripe for revision and resubmit?",

keywords = "Peer review, academic publishing, professions, Business History",

author = "Christina Lubinski and Stephanie Decker and Niall MacKenzie",

year = "2024",

month = jun,

day = "22",

doi = "10.1080/00076791.2024.2325610",

language = "English",

volume = "66",

pages = "773--792",

journal = "Business History",

issn = "0007-6791",

publisher = "Taylor & Francis",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Revise and Resubmit?

T2 - Peer Reviewing Business Historical Research

AU - Lubinski, Christina

AU - Decker, Stephanie

AU - MacKenzie, Niall

PY - 2024/6/22

Y1 - 2024/6/22

N2 - Peer review in Business History has benefitted from the insights of over 550 expert reviewers over the past three years. In this editorial, we contextualise the journal’s peer review process historically and in the available literature. We discuss some of the challenges of the double-blind review system, including securing reviewer engagement amidst time constraints and publication pressure, the dark sides of anonymisation, and the role of bias, values, and interdisciplinarity in research evaluations. Based on these reflections, we furnish some concrete guidance for reviewers on how to approach business historical research. We end by contemplating the future landscape of peer review and opening a conversation about review standards and reviewer education in the field of business history. Is peer review ripe for revision and resubmit?

AB - Peer review in Business History has benefitted from the insights of over 550 expert reviewers over the past three years. In this editorial, we contextualise the journal’s peer review process historically and in the available literature. We discuss some of the challenges of the double-blind review system, including securing reviewer engagement amidst time constraints and publication pressure, the dark sides of anonymisation, and the role of bias, values, and interdisciplinarity in research evaluations. Based on these reflections, we furnish some concrete guidance for reviewers on how to approach business historical research. We end by contemplating the future landscape of peer review and opening a conversation about review standards and reviewer education in the field of business history. Is peer review ripe for revision and resubmit?

KW - Peer review

KW - academic publishing

KW - professions

KW - Business History

U2 - 10.1080/00076791.2024.2325610

DO - 10.1080/00076791.2024.2325610

M3 - Editorial

SN - 0007-6791

VL - 66

SP - 773

EP - 792

JO - Business History

JF - Business History

IS - 4

ER -