open access publication

Article, 2024

Revise and resubmit? Peer reviewing business historical research

Business History, ISSN 1743-7938, 0007-6791, Volume 66, 4, Pages 773-792, 10.1080/00076791.2024.2325610

Contributors

Lubinski, Christina 0000-0001-9150-3284 (Corresponding author) [1] Decker, Stephanie 0000-0003-0547-9594 [2] Mackenzie, Niall G 0000-0003-3769-7086 [3]

Affiliations

  1. [1] Copenhagen Business School
  2. [NORA names: CBS Copenhagen Business School; University; Denmark; Europe, EU; Nordic; OECD];
  3. [2] University of Birmingham
  4. [NORA names: United Kingdom; Europe, Non-EU; OECD];
  5. [3] University of Glasgow
  6. [NORA names: United Kingdom; Europe, Non-EU; OECD]

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?

Keywords

and, anonymisation, bias, business, business history, challenges, constraints, conversion, dark side, editorial, education, engagement, evaluation, expert review, guidance, historical research, history, interdisciplinarity, journal peer review process, journals, landscape, literature, opening, peer, peer review, peer review process, pressure, process, public pressure, publications, reflection, research, research evaluation, resubmit, review, review education, review engagements, review process, review standards, review system, revision, ripeness, standards, system, values, years

Data Provider: Digital Science