Make peer review great (again?)

Anders Ravn Sørensen

Business History, 2024, vol. 66, issue 4, 799-801

Abstract: In this reply I comment on the editorial by Lubinski, Decker, and MacKenzie. I applaud the editors’ initiative to raise a discussion on peer-review, and point to the need for a new valuation of the taken-for-granted work and effort that reviewers generously avail for authors, journals and publishers. I also argue for the increasing need for real humans in peer-review, in a future where AI promises to deliver non-empathic readings, valuations and editing of academic work.

Date: 2024
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00076791.2024.2324877 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:bushst:v:66:y:2024:i:4:p:799-801

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/FBSH20

DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2024.2324877

Access Statistics for this article

Business History is currently edited by Professor John Wilson and Professor Steven Toms

More articles in Business History from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().