Dear list members,
A lot of good comments and insight on the subject of the review process by
several participants made me come out of my 'list lurking mode' and make -
hopefully - a constructive contribution to the list's discussion. I would
like to add my reflections on the review process as a reviewer and author.
The philosopher Susan Langer once said: 'to understand a thing you have to
understand its purpose'. What might the purposes of reviews be?
First of all it is part of a learning process based on dialogue. As a
reviewer you learn a lot from others' works, both from fallacies and from
novel constructions and experiences. As an author you learn a lot from the
reviewers' feedback regardless of whether you agree with their comments,
ideas and judgements. As a matter of fact you may feel good if the review
recommendation is: 'Accept as is'. However, the learning from dialogue is
lost. The 'learning through dialogue' can be achieved in a number of
settings, but my experience is that only very good and close colleagues,
co-authors, co-researchers and serious reviewers give feedback for learning
and improvement of own work. It may be well to consider maximising the
learning aspect of any meeting we construct, inluding future DRS events.
The other main purpose of reviewing is institutional: Publishers (of
proceedings and jouirnals and books) actually want their material to be
read and be respected (e.g. build a reputation). For that they use their
right to choose what they consider to be relevant and of right quality. As
a reviewer you try to contribute to the quality and relevance control
function for the publisher as well as giving constructive feedback to the
authors, so that they contribute constructively to the discourse selected
by the publisher.
By the same token, if you want to get published, ask if your current work
can contribute to known and addressed hot topics (.i.e. calls for paper and
current debates in published materials). Often very good material is sent
to the wrong address. Don't blame the reviewer - blame yourself as an
author.
I know that many authors send half-finished papers for review just to get
feedback for finishing the paper. As an author I like the idea, as a
reviewer I hate it. Maybe conferences should have tracks that have
uncensored papers, where the reviewers are discussion partners meeting
face-to-face, rather than burdening the ordinary review process?
And by the way - I enjoyed the Common Ground conference. A lot of the
papers certainly discussed what the common ground might be, and how it can
be detected and be made more accesible.
With warm wishes to all authors and reviewers who by and large do a
commendable job,
Bryn
Brynjulf Tellefsen
Associate Professor
Department of Leadership and Organisation
Norwegian School of Management
P. O. Box 580
N-1302 Sandvika
NORWAY
Street address: Elias Smiths vei 15, Room 33-49
Phone direct: +47-6755 7191
Via exchange: +47-6755 7000
Faximile: +47-6755 7678
Private phone/fax: +47-2214 9697
Mobile phone: +47-9700 7101
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Web: www.bi.no
|