Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||On interference, collegiality and co-authorship: Peer review of journal articles in management and organization studies|
|Authors:||Brewis, Joanna P.|
|Citation:||Organization: the interdisciplinary journal of organization, theory and society, 2017, In Press|
|Abstract:||Management and organization studies commentary on how authors experience peer review of journal papers suggests 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 paper, qualitative interviews with twelve 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.|
|Embargo on file until:||1-Jan-10000|
|Rights:||Copyright © 2017, Sage. Deposited with reference to the publisher’s open access archiving policy.|
|Description:||This paper was resubmitted in August 2016 and received a minor revisions decision in November 2016. It was resubmitted in January 2017|
The file associated with this record is under embargo until publication, in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy. The full text may be available through the publisher links provided above.
|Appears in Collections:||Published Articles, School of Management|
Files in This Item:
|Co-authorship paper R and R v2 FINAL, Organization.docx||Post-review (final submitted author manuscript)||108.36 kB||Unknown||View/Open|
|Co-authorship paper final R and R, Organization, table 1.docx||Post-review (final submitted author manuscript)||13.92 kB||Unknown||View/Open|
|Co-authorship+paper+final+R+and+R%2C+Organization%2C+table+1.pdf||Post-review (final submitted author manuscript)||97.12 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
|Co-authorship+paper+R+and+R+v2+FINAL%2C+Organization.pdf||Post-review (final submitted author manuscript)||365.97 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
Items in LRA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.