Obligations and Obfuscations in the Review Process

This insightful article, “From the Editors: Obligations and Obfuscations in the Review Process,” authored by David Harrison and Tom Lee, was published in The Academy of Management Journal in December 2002. The piece offers a candid and often humorous exploration into the complex and frequently challenging world of academic peer review, drawing from the firsthand experiences of Harrison as a long-time AMJ reviewer, advisory committee chair, and associate editor.

The authors highlight that everyone in academia simultaneously acts as both a reviewer and an author, suggesting that a different “persona” might emerge when one adopts the “reviewing hat”. Reviewing is portrayed as a crucial yet often unrewarding professional obligation that demands significant time, often feeling more like “destroying than creating” due to its critical nature. Despite its importance in upholding a journal’s reputation and selecting high-quality submissions—with less than 10% of submissions typically making it to print in AMJ—the process offers few extrinsic rewards beyond intellectual and social capital.

To address the inherent challenges and perceived unfairness within the review process, the article boldly proposes “A Bill of Rights for Manuscript Authors”. This framework, informed by principles of procedural and interactional justice, aims to foster thinking and dialogue about improving reviewing practices. The five rights outlined are:

1. The right to respectful and courteous interpersonal treatment: Authors deserve civility, with reviewers urged to avoid “vitriol,” “bluster,” and overtly harsh language. The article provides examples of subtle and blatant disrespect, advocating for constructive criticism over inflammatory remarks.
2. The right to full and careful readings of their submissions: Reviewers should engage with manuscripts holistically and without interruption, rather than through fragmented readings. Reviews comprising “unconnected trivialities” or factually incorrect statements are cited as clear indicators of a lack of thorough reading.
3. The right to expect criticisms of their work to follow the same standards of logic and evidence applied to themselves: Criticisms should be properly developed and supported with relevant references, facts, or deductive logic. The authors challenge vague assertions like “Everybody knows,” “tyranny of pet ideas,” or “methodological ascendancy” unless explicitly justified.
4. The right to expect criticisms of their work to be prioritized: Reviews should move beyond lengthy “laundry lists” of unclassified points, instead focusing authors’ attention on “The Biggest Problem”. Suggestions include categorizing issues as “Major” versus “Minor” or abstracting smaller problems into broader conceptual categories, like “Construct Validity Issues”.
5. The right to get feedback about their work in a reasonable span of time: While acknowledging the heavy time demands on reviewers, the article discusses the balance between quick turnaround and the need for thoughtful, careful deliberation that can lead to better published papers. Harrison suggests that authors might need to adopt a more patient stance regarding review timelines to alleviate the burden on reviewers.

Ultimately, Harrison and Lee’s article serves as a powerful call for self-reflection and systemic improvement within academic peer review, advocating for a more balanced, fair, and constructive approach to scholarly communication.

Reference: Harrison, D., & Lee, T. (2002). From the editors: Obligations and obfuscations in the review process. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1079–1084. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3069425