Peer Review and Scholarly Originality
Let 1,000 Flowers Bloom, but Don’t Step on Any
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11638128 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Kyle Siler (0000-0003-0427-9283, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, corresponding author), David Strang (Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA) |
| Year | 2016 |
| Volume | 42 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 29-61 |
| Publication date | 2016-07-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Science Technology & Human Values (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0162-2439 • E-ISSN: 1552-8251 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/0162243916656919 |
| OpenAlex | W2469496264 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 9 |
| References cited | 56 |
We examine the criticisms and subsequent changes that arise in the course of peer review. Fifty-two scholars who had recently published in Administrative Science Quarterly were surveyed regarding their peer review experience and how their article changed from initial journal submission to eventual publication. Papers that challenged theoretical perspectives faced distinctively high levels of criticism and change, particularly with attention to methodology, while those that offered a new perspective or that extended or combined established perspectives were less criticized and changed. The number of challenge-oriented publications was small as well, suggesting that either few such submissions survive the review process or few are submitted in the first place. Overall, peer review appears open to expansion of the variety of theoretical argument but does little to aid in the winnowing out of established perspectives
Argument (complex analysis · Criticism · Economics · Epistemology · Originality · Peer review · Perspective (graphical · Political science · Positive economics · Social science · Sociology · Variety (cybernetics · Accounting and Organizational Management · Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance · Computer Science · Law · Management and Organizational Studies · Medicine · Philosophy
The Influence of Disciplinary Origins on Peer Review Normativities in a New Discipline
How do journals of different rank instruct peer reviewers? Reviewer guidelines in the field of management
Scholarly Publishing, Boundary Processes, and the Problem of Fake Peer Reviews
Managing the Growth of Peer Review at the Royal Society Journals, 1865-1965
On Peer Review and Exchanges Unseen
Peer review assessment of originality in tourism journals
Re-invent Yourself! How Demands for Innovativeness Reshape Epistemic Practices
From ‘just the facts’ to ‘more theory and methods, please’
From ‘making lists’ to conducting ‘well-rounded’ studies
How Professors Think
The Field of Management's Devotion to Theory
Publication prejudices
Peer-review practices of psychological journals
A Statistical Interpretation of Term Specificity and Its Application in Retrieval
What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior
Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search
The Bias Against Creativity
Ambiguity Aversion and Comparative Ignorance
Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
Department and Discipline
The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
The Essential Tension
New Light on Old Boys
Evaluation and the Exercise of Authority
On the shoulders of giants
That's Interesting
Social Theory and Social Structure
Biased assimilation and attitude polarization
What is Originality in the Humanities and the Social Sciences
Tradition and Innovation in Scientists' Research Strategies
Facts and Myths about Refereeing
How Are the Mighty Fallen
Revising as Reframing
Structural Holes and Good Ideas
| Unique citing works | 9 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1 |
| Citation span | 2017 - 2025 (9) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 9 |