Article, Early Access,
Revise and resubmit? Peer reviewing business historical research
Contributors
Lubinski, Christina
0000-0001-9150-3284
(Corresponding author)
[1]
Decker, Stephanie
0000-0003-0547-9594
[2]
Affiliations
- [1] Copenhagen Business Sch, Dept Business Humanities & Law, Frederiksberg, Denmark [NORA names: CBS Copenhagen Business School; University; Denmark; Europe, EU; Nordic; OECD];
- [2] Univ Birmingham, Dept Strategy & Int Business, Birmingham, W Midlands, England [NORA names: United Kingdom; Europe, Non-EU; OECD];
- [3] Univ Glasgow, Adam Smith Business Sch, Glasgow City, Scotland [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?
