Harry Potter in the Academy

As Journal of Management Education (JME) editors, the critically important work of reviewing is never far from our minds. During our post–Academy of Management meeting debrief conversations, it again has taken a forefront position. Each of us heard more than one Program Chair in Vancouver lament how difficult it continues to be to get solid reviews; one divisional Chair noted that, although submissions had increased about 30%, the reviewer corps had slightly decreased in numbers despite repeated entreaties to that division’s community. Our editorial team, too, has noted increasing difficulty in wrangling the terrific reviews that JME authors have enjoyed for 40 years. We think it is important to address what might be going on throughout our discipline and perhaps elsewhere in academe as well.

As we move through the various tasks of our work as editors, particularly when representing JME at conferences, a significant portion of what we do is devoted to the reviewing process—asking and encouraging individuals to volunteer as reviewers, talking about how important it is for JME to offer developmental reviews, conducting workshops on how to craft such reviews, and counseling authors on the ways to consider reviewer feedback as a basis for improving their manuscript. All of our engagements with reviewers and authors remind us that reviewing is an essential contribution to knowledge creation in our field, a fundamental activity that helps maintain the high quality of articles published in JME and any other top outlet. And yet, we have been repeatedly reminded of the mismatch manifested in getting our scholarship published. Academics strive mightily to publish their work in high-quality journal outlets, with such articles among the most potent currency in academic life, while the process by which publication happens—developmental reviewing that requires being über-current in the field and engaging with manuscripts deeply and caringly—is almost completely ignored in any serious consideration of knowledge creation (e.g., in annual evaluations and promotion/tenure packets). Why is that? The work of reviewing seems to us more and more a black box of political and emotional intrigue that can confound in its complexity. If journal articles are so very valued in our academic enterprise, why isn’t reviewing?

We should not be surprised by the shrinking pool of reviewers for our conferences and publications. Steve Kerr explained for us decades ago how we focus our attention on that which is rewarded at the expense of other activities (Kerr, 1975). Perhaps because of Kerr’s article so many years ago and its continued power to frame reward systems theory and practice, we would expect management academics to, well, understand how not acknowledging the importance of reviewing will lead to precisely the dearth of reviewer pool we and other editors are experiencing, and change the reward system. That reviewing remains largely considered a service activity rather than a bona fide intellectual contribution is a serious issue for the continued health of our field. And the “blind” aspect of reviewing only exacerbates its invisibility—a reviewer devotes many hours, probably closer to a full day, to assessing a manuscript and to crafting a helpful, supportive review, and all that is usually noted on that person’s CV is a single bullet point telling others for which journals she or he serves as a reviewer. This must change, not only due to the inequity between those who author and those who review but also because of its gross distortion of how publication actually comes about.

Others engaged in editorial work, both within and outside the scholarship of teaching and learning, have emphasized the importance of reviewing as “a crucial element in the process of creating and disseminating academic knowledge” (Sullivan, Baruch, & Schepmyer, 2010; see also Priem & Rasheed, 2006). Much has been written about the craft of reviewing and what makes for a high-quality review (Brown, 2012; Harrison, 2002), how authors benefit from the review process (Rynes, 2006), and the appropriate relationship between author, reviewer, and editor (Bedian, 2004). At the same time, the reviewing process in academe has been likened to a “game” (Raelin, 2008) and a “myth” (McDonald, 2015), calling into question the assumptions that we make about this essential activity. In a recent posting to The Ethicist, Benson Honig invites discussion of the blind review process within the context of the Academy of Management’s code of ethics and differences in journal practices regarding reviewer confidentiality. Honig notes that “there may be differences of opinion, interpretation, and possibly even confusion regarding what is expected of a blind reviewer, and what would be considered professional or unprofessional conduct” following completion of the review process (Honig, 2015). Clearly, we are not the only ones mulling the role of reviewers and the reviewing process in the work of academe!

As journal editors and longtime reviewers ourselves, we are delighted that the new AACSB standards have shifted reviewing from service activity to faculty engagement activity within the intellectual contribution domain (2013, Standard 15 Faculty Qualifications and Engagement). Admittedly, while not all institutions are AACSB accredited, the norms established by this organization play a significant role in the professional expectations of our field. So for those who have toiled as reviewers and editorial board members simply as a service to the profession, we both admire your commitment (despite Kerr’s predictions) and encourage you now to list JME reviewing activities on your promotion/tenure/annual review materials as an intellectual contribution worthy of professional recognition. Congratulations! You may now throw off your Cloak of Invisibility (at least on your CV).

As with Harry Potter’s magic Cloak, there are good things that result from reviewer invisibility. Anonymity allows the freedom to evaluate based solely on merit. This is true for us and in fields far beyond the academic enterprise, such as with the increased hiring of female musicians as a result of blind orchestral auditions (Goldin & Rouse, 2000). Furthermore, anonymity means we can submit our work to journals with the expectation that editors will choose wisely among qualified reviewers no matter where in the academy they are found. Yet the privileged position that publication enjoys while reviewing does not still bothers us.

There are similarities between the work that reviewers do in support of knowledge creation in our profession and the organizational citizenship work we all do in our academic institutions. Both are essential, both contribute to the “greater good” of the field or organization, and neither is compensated directly within professional or organizational reward structures. While we view the shift from professional service to intellectual engagement as an important affirmation of this essential work, and in some ways a “fix” for the taken-for-granted nature of reviewing work, this action alone does not address the Invisible Cloak under which the work of blind reviewers resides, in examining, developing, and nurturing specific articles that are published in our journals. We have been considering how to get the best of both sides of the reviewing Invisibility Cloak to address the realities of academic rewards systems while honoring the benefits that accrue to both authors and reviewers as a result of the blinded process. Some of our ideas include the following:

We have been talking with our colleagues at other management education journals about our concerns, which we find many of them share at least to some extent. Not all of our ideas about throwing off the Cloak, however, have been welcome. We suggested to other editors that in each published issue we share the names of the reviewers who made those articles possible, an idea that met with universal resistance due to concerns for reviewers’ right to evaluate without any threat of author intervention for future papers.

As is often the case, there are no simple answers, and each publication must take into account its mandate, its sponsoring organization, and the views and sensibilities of its reviewers, authors, and readers. To further the JME conversation, and hopefully a discussion within the management education community at large, we invite you to consider the following questions: