Revise and resubmit? Peer reviewing business historical research

2024

Full text Open access: Green Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.1080/00076791.2024.2325610
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Introduction. 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?