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

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.

Keywords:

• Peer-review
• accreditations
• OpenAI
• Journals

Acknowledgements

I herewith certify that this essay represents original and independent scholarship. That is, generative AI was not used in the idea-generating phase of this essay, nor was it used to assist the writing or editing of this essay. I observe with concern that many journal publishers undermine the meaning of the term ‘original scholarship’ by allowing the use of generative AI in the research process, while actual enforceability of relevant policies is low. Further, the views present in this review commentary are my own personal views – they do not represent, nor should they be interpreted, as representing the official position of the Academy of Management Learning and Education, for which I currently serve as EIC, or the Academy of Management. I am grateful for the critical commentary that Marcos Barros provided on an earlier version of the piece. Finally, I gratefully recognize the support from the Alberta Business Family Institute at the University of Alberta School of Business as part of my visiting professorship.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 According to the Cambridge Dictionary, ‘marmite’ is a brand name for a “a type of soft, dark brown, salty-tasting food for spreading on bread, made from yeast, that is popular in the UK. In colloquial UK parlance, it has a very distinctive meaning concerning “something or someone that some people like very much and other people dislike very strongly: See https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/marmite (accessed 30 Sep 2023).

2 See: https://www.aacsb.edu/.

3 I see recognising reviews as essential component in accreditation standards as a temporal solution until the scholarly community has found a way to push back on the quantification of higher education and its detrimental effects (Grolleau & Meunier, 2023).

4 In my opinion, there is a need among journals to closely monitor submission rates in the foreseeable future for any hikes in submission patterns that could indicate that authors become more ‘efficient’ and ‘productive’ in their work, possibly as a result of using ChatGPT. When and if technology permits it, detection tools for AI generated text could be employed. However, given the nonchalant attitude amongst many publishers terms of actual enforceability of rules concerning the use of ChatGPT – for instance, that it can be used in theory to write 90% of an article, but not being listed as author – I am not holding my breath here.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Dirk Lindebaum

Dirk Lindebaum is senior professor at Grenoble Ecole de Management (France), and a visiting professor at the University of Alberta School of Business (Canada). He is curious about “values” as meta-theme in his research, particularly in relation to theory building, technology and emotions at work. He is currently serving as Editor-in-Chief at the Academy of Management Learning & Education.