Is peer review ripe for a revise and resubmit? – Academics might be less the party answering that question

Dirk Lindebaum

Business History, 2024, vol. 66, issue 4, 802-806

Abstract: This is a short essay in response to the editorial by Lubinski, Decker, and MacKenzie (this issue), in which the authors emphasise the need for scientific peer-review, but also scrutinise it for its potential necessity to be ‘revised and resubmitted’. Finding much agreement with their engaging and insightful editorial, I elaborate a little on some of their arguments (especially on ‘snarky reviewers’), but also add to their piece by highlighting that there are many external parties – from accreditation bodies and publishers to OpenAI et al. – that prompt the evolution of peer-review in ways that increasingly slips out of academic control. Therefore, when the question is asked ‘whether peer review is ripe for a revise and resubmit?’, my concern is that academics become less the party answering that question.

Date: 2024
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00076791.2024.2318464 (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:802-806

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

DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2024.2318464

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 ().