Revise and resubmit? Peer reviewing business historical research

References

• Aguinis, H., Cummings, C., Ramani, R. S., & Cummings, T. G. (2020). “An a is an A”: The new bottom line for valuing academic research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(1), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0193
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen, H., Cury, A., Gaston, T., Graf, C., Wakley, H., & Willis, M. (2019). What does better peer review look like? Underlying principles and recommendations for better practice. Learned Publishing, 32(2), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1222
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Medical Association. (1989). Guarding the guardians: Research on peer review: The First international congress on peer review in biomedical publications. American Medical Association.
   Google Scholar
• Argento, D., Dobija, D., & Grossi, G. (2020). The disillusion of calculative practices in academia. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 17(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRAM-12-2019-0130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atwater, L. E., Mumford, M. D., Schriesheim, C. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (2014). Retraction of leadership articles: Causes and prevention. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(6), 1174–1180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.10.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baldwin, M. (2015a). Credibility, peer review, and “Nature”, 1945–1990. Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 69(3), 337–352. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2015.0029
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baldwin, M. (2015b). Making "Nature": The history of a scientific journal. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baldwin, M. (2018). Scientific autonomy, public accountability, and the rise of “peer review” in the cold war United States. Isis, 109(3), 538–558. https://doi.org/10.1086/700070
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barczak, G., & Griffin, A. (2021). How to conduct an effective peer review. Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800371767
   Google Scholar
• Bedeian, A. G. (2003). The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(4), 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492603258974
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bedeian, A. G. (2004). Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management ­discipline. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(2), 198–216. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2004.13500489
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bettis, R. A., Ethiraj, S., Gambardella, A., Helfat, C., & Mitchell, W. (2016). Creating repeatable cumulative knowledge in strategic management: A call for broad and deep conversations among authors, referees, and editors. Strategic Management Journal, 37(2), 257–261. http://www.jstor.org.esc-web.lib.cbs.dk/stable/43897939 https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2477
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloch, M. (1954). The Historian’s craft. Manchester University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Borkowski, S. C., & Welsh, M. J. (1998). Ethics and the accounting publishing process: Author, ­reviewers, and editor issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(16), 1785–1803. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005773522456
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourke, R., & Skinner, Q. (Eds.). (2022). History in the humanities and social sciences. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009231053
   Google Scholar
• Burnham, J. C. (1990). The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA, 263(10), 1323–1329. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100023003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burnham, J. C. (2015). Health care in America: A history. Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, J. T., & Conlon, D. E. (2021). It takes a village: A practical guide to reviewing for AMR. Academy of Management Review, 46(2), 221–225. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2021.0050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpenter, M. A. (2009). Editor’s comments: Mentoring colleagues in the craft and spirit of peer review. Academy of Management Review, 34(2), 191–195. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2009.36982609
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• COPE Council. (2017). COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers—English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9
   Google Scholar
• Csiszar, A. (2016). Peer review: Troubled from the start. Nature, 532(7599), 306–308. https://doi.org/10.1038/532306a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Csiszar, A. (2018). The scientific journal: Authorship and the politics of knowledge in the nineteenth century. Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• De Jong, A., Higgins, D., & van Driel, H. (2015). Towards a new business history? Business History, 57(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2014.977869
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dean, K. L., & Forray, J. M. (2018). The long goodbye: Can academic citizenship sustain academic scholarship? Journal of Management Inquiry, 27(2), 164–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492617726480
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Decker, S., Foster, W., & Giovannoni, E. (Eds.). (2023). Handbook of historical methods for management. Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Decker, S., Kipping, M., & Wadhwani, D. R. (2015). New business histories! Plurality in business history research methods. Business History, 57(1), 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2014.977870
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeSimone, J. A., Brannick, M. T., O’Boyle, E. H., & Ryu, J. W. (2021). Recommendations for reviewing meta-analyses in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 24(4), 694–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120967089
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Driggers, R. (2015). Think twice before declining a manuscript review request: Editorial. Applied Optics, 54(16), ED6–ED6. https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.54.000ED6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, M. A., & Roy, S. (2017). Academic research in the 21st century: Maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science, 34(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0223
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrell, P. R., Magida Farrell, L., & Farrell, M. K. (2017). Ancient texts to PubMed: A brief history of the peer-review process. Journal of Perinatology, 37(1), 13–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.209
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffin, A., & Barczak, G. (2020). Effective reviewing for conceptual journal submissions. AMS Review, 10(1–2), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00162-z
   Google Scholar
• Harley, B. (2019). Confronting the crisis of confidence in management studies: Why senior scholars need to stop setting a bad example. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 18(2), 286–297. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2018.0107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison, D. (2002). Obligations and obfuscations in the review process. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1079–1084. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2002.9265944
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber, P. W. (1991). Galileo’s revenge: Junk science in the courtroom. Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Ioannidis, J. P. A., Berkwits, M., Flanagin, A., Godlee, F., & Bloom, T. (2021). Ninth international congress on peer review and scientific publication: Call for abstracts. JAMA, 326(13), 1265–1267. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.16596
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iordanou, I. (Forthcoming). The origins of organisation: A trans-methodological approach to the historical analysis of preindustrial organisations. Business History, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2023.2181957
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jamali, H. R., Nicholas, D., Sims, D., Watkinson, A., Herman, E., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Rodríguez-Bravo, B., Świgoń, M., Abrizah, A., Xu, J., Tenopir, C., & Allard, S. (2023). The pandemic and changes in early career researchers’ career prospects, research and publishing practices. PloS One, 18(2), e0281058. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281058
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaltenbrunner, W., Pinfield, S., Waltman, L., Buckley Woods, H., & Brumberg, J. (2022). Innovating peer review, reconfiguring scholarly communication: An analytical overview of ongoing peer review innovation activities. Journal of Documentation, 78(7), 429–449. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-01-2022-0022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennefick, D. (1999). Controversies in the history of the radiation reaction problem in general relativity. In H. Goenner, J. Renn, J. Ritter, & T. Sauer (Eds.), The expanding worlds of general relativity (pp. 194–214). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kibler, E., & Laine, L. (Forthcoming). Counternarrating entrepreneurship. Business History, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2023.2177637
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Köhler, T., González-Morales, M. G., Banks, G. C., O’Boyle, E. H., Allen, J. A., Sinha, R., Woo, S. E., & Gulick, L. M. V. (2020). Supporting robust, rigorous, and reliable reviewing as the cornerstone of our profession: Introducing a competency framework for peer review. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 13(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2019.121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kronick, D. A. (1990). Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA, 263(10), 1321–1322. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100021002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamont, M. L. (2009). How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674054158
   Google Scholar
• Lindebaum, D., & Jordan, P. J. (2023). Publishing more than reviewing? Some ethical musings on the sustainability of the peer review process. Organization, 30(2), 396–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084211051047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• List, B. (2017). Crowd-based peer review can be good and fast. Nature, 546(7656), 9–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/546009a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lock, S. (1985). A difficult balance: Editorial peer review in medicine. Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust.
   Google Scholar
• Lowenthal, D. (2015). The past is a foreign country - Revisited. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lubinski, C., Wadhwani, R. D., Gartner, W. B., & Rottner, R. (Forthcoming). Humanistic approaches to change: Entrepreneurship and transformation. Business History, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2023.2213193
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maclean, M., Harvey, C., & Clegg, S. (2016). Conceptualizing historical organization studies. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 609–632. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mordhorst, M., & Schwarzkopf, S. (2017). Theorising narrative in business history. Business History, 59(8), 1155–1175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2017.1357697
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nature Neuroscience. (1999). Pros and cons of open peer review. Nature Neuroscience, 2(3), 197–198. https://doi.org/10.1038/6295
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nix, A., & Decker, S. (2023). Using digital sources: The future of business history? Business History, 65(6), 1048–1071. https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2021.1909572
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paltridge, B. (2017). The discourse of peer review: Reviewing submissions to academic journals. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, L. (2011). University corporatisation: Driving redefinition. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(4), 434–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2010.11.002
   Google Scholar
• Pyenson, L. (1985). The young Einstein: The advent of relativity. Adam Hilger.
   Google Scholar
• Ragins, B. R. (2017). Editor’s comments: Raising the bar for developmental reviewing. Academy of Management Review, 42(4), 573–576. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0464
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ram, H., Giacomin, V., & Wakslak, C. (Forthcoming). Entrepreneurial imagination: Insights from construal level theory for historical entrepreneurship. Business History, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2022.2149737
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rennie, D. (1999). Editorial peer review: Its development and rationale. In T. Jefferson & F. Godlee (Eds.), Peer review in health sciences (pp. 3–13). BMJ Books.
   Google Scholar
• Ridley, M. (2023, August 12). Why scientific research is in crisis. The Spectator (World). https://thespectator.com/topic/science-research-crisis-covid-peer-review-politics/
   Google Scholar
• Seifried, C. (2017). Peer reviewing historical research for sport management: It’s not qualitative research. International Journal of Sport Management, 18(4), 461–487.
   Google Scholar
• Spoelstra, S., Butler, N., & Delaney, H. (2016). Never let an academic crisis go to waste: Leadership studies in the wake of journal retractions. Leadership, 12(4), 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715016658215
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suddaby, R. (2014). Editor’s comments: Why theory? Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 407–411. http://www.jstor.org.esc-web.lib.cbs.dk/stable/43699256 https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0252
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swire-Thompson, B., & Lazer, D. (2022). Reducing health misinformation in science: A call to arms. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 700(1), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221087686
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teplitskiy, M., Acuna, D., Elamrani-Raoult, A., Körding, K., & Evans, J. (2018). The sociology of scientific validity: How professional networks shape judgement in peer review. Research Policy, 47(9), 1825–1841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.06.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Treviño, L. K. (2008). Editor’s comments: Why review? Because reviewing is a professional responsibility. The Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 8–10. http://www.jstor.org.esc-web.lib.cbs.dk/stable/20159373
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsui, A. (2016). Reflections on the so-called value-free ideal. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 23(1), 4–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-08-2015-0101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsui, A. S., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2011). Commitment to excellence: Upholding research integrity at management and organization review. Management and Organization Review, 7(3), 389–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00250.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Noorden, R. (2011). Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Nature, 478(7367), 26–28. https://doi.org/10.1038/478026a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wadhwani, R. D., & Sørensen, A. R. (2023). Methods of musement: Cultivating serious play in research on business and organization. Management & Organizational History, 18(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449359.2023.2187032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh, J. P. (2011). Presidential address: Embracing the sacred in our secular scholarly world. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 215–234. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.36.2.zok215
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses. ASIST.
   Google Scholar
• Yates, J. (2002). Writing peer reviews of manuscripts. MIT Open Courseware, Communication Skills for Academics. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/15-289-communication-skills-for-academics-spring-2002/resources/teach_note_pee_rev/.
   Google Scholar
• Zald, M. (1993). Organization studies as a scientific and humanistic enterprise: Toward a reconceptualization of the foundations of the field. Organization Science, 4(4), 513–528. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.4.4.513
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9(1), 66–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01553188
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar