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.
I very much appreciate the editors’ desire to assess peer review and discuss the future perspectives of this integral aspect of academic lives and careers. This discussion is both pertinent and timely for several reasons.
Firstly, the engagement with the peer review process and the concrete suggestions in this essay provide much-needed dos and don’ts—a best practice, if you will—that will benefit both reviewers and authors. The essay offers current and prospective peer reviewers (and authors) valuable insights into the considerations and workings of editorial practices. It allows for a peek behind the curtain into a process that, for the junior scholar with high ambitions and pressure to publish, may seem more esoteric than it really is. This transparency is greatly beneficial.
I also commend the essay for addressing the peer review process in business- and organisational history journals. The discussion highlights an often under-appreciated and invisible aspect of an academic’s work, which, despite being time-consuming and essential, is often overlooked by university management. Peer review must be recognised as a crucial element in the advancement and dissemination of knowledge. It’s paradoxical that the increased institutional pressure to publish is not accompanied by increased incentives or recognition for the hard work that voluntary and anonymous colleagues, peers, put into peer review.
Many journals have begun to credit reviewers in print or award prizes for ‘best reviews', as planned in Business History. This initiative is much-needed and can hopefully retain and inspire reviewers. I myself, always try to thank reviewers in personalised emails, acknowledging the time and energy they dedicate to the future running of Management & Organizational History.
However, as rightly pointed out by Andrew Popp in his commentary in this journal, praise does not pay the bills. More disturbingly, peer reviewing does not advance careers; if anything, it takes precious time and energy away from developing one’s own papers and grant submissions. Most universities lack intricate incentive schemes that measure the quantity or quality of peer reviews. In my 13 years in academia at Copenhagen Business School, performance reviews have never inquired about the number or quality of reviews. Never. I've been asked to publish, but not to review.
This is a significant problem; current incentive structures often deter voluntary academic citizenship at the expense of publishing. The irony, as addressed in the editorial essay, is that the increased number of publications requires an increased number of reviewers. As an editor of one of the smaller journals in the field, I grapple with this challenge weekly, trying to find reviewers for good papers. However, reviewers are not queuing up; editors must use their networks and perhaps call in small favours to secure quality reviews. This situation is unsustainable and calls for a reconfiguration of university and business schools’ incentive structures. Authors, reviewers, and editors must insist on new structures of valuation where possible.
The editors do an excellent job of pointing out new ideas and features that could be implemented to ensure the sustainability of the peer review system, from an automated AI-driven paper triage to different ways of recognising reviewers’ work. They optimistically highlight the benefits for reviewers when the process exposes them to new ideas, methods, and literature. Reviewing, they argue, is not only hard work but also an opportunity for reviewers to learn and develop their fields.
I agree that peer reviewing is rewarding in itself. However, the opportunity to learn and be exposed to new ideas may not be enough incentive for reviewers to volunteer their time. Ideally, it should be, but I might be more pessimistic about the nature of humankind than the engaged editors of Business History. Academic philanthropy and professional diligence are matters of personal habitus, something every scholar needs to mobilise from within. This, at least in my experience, is easier said than done.
Finally, I want to address future challenges to peer review beyond recruiting, retaining, and rewarding reviewers. Snarky reviewers are not the problem, at least from my experience with Management & Organizational History. Most reviews I receive are generous, constructive, and developmental in nature. The overwhelming majority of reviewers want their colleagues and their professional field to thrive. While the occasional outlier exists, most reviewers do a diligent job.
If anything, what I wish for in the reviews I receive is more humanity, not less. The truly good reviews are those where you sense that there is a real-life human behind the comments and suggestions, conveying a form of scholarly altruism that develops ideas and arguments. Snarky reviews are not welcomed, but engaged humanistic reviewers are key to developing individual papers and academic fields. In a future where AI-assisted or even AI-authored papers and reviews become more common, real-live humans will be more crucial than ever in contributing to the development of knowledge within the humanities. Algorithms cannot provide ethical, humanistic peer reviews. By sheer definition, algorithms can’t be compassionate and caring in feedback and peer-review criticism because computers are not peers (see also Lindenbaum, Citation2024).
This means that humans, real humans, will be in demand as much as ever in peer review, especially in fields within or at the intersection of humanistic disciplines. We must find a way to incentivize human engagement—a way that goes beyond the occasional publishing of reviewer names. I believe this editorial essay has taken an important step in opening up this discussion.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s)
Reference
- Lindenbaum, D. (2024). Is peer review ripe for a revise and resubmit? – Academics might be less the party answering that question. Business History.