观点:同行评审不断演变的格局

IF 3.8 4区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS Journal of Services Marketing Pub Date : 2024-03-12 DOI:10.1108/jsm-09-2023-0325
Emmanuel Mogaji
{"title":"观点:同行评审不断演变的格局","authors":"Emmanuel Mogaji","doi":"10.1108/jsm-09-2023-0325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>The purpose of this viewpoint is to spotlight the role of reviewers within the collaborative triad of academic publishing. It argues that the significance of reviewers is often disregarded, leading to a gap in our understanding of the peer review process. This perspective emphasizes reviewers as unsung heroes in the publishing ecosystem, providing intentional and thought-provoking insights into the less-discussed yet impactful developments in the evolving peer review landscape.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>Leveraging the author’s distinguished background as a recipient of the <em>Journal of Service Marketing</em> Outstanding Reviewer Award, this paper offers a personal reflection and synthesised viewpoints on the peer review process. Serving as a representative voice for reviewers, it provides insightful perspectives from the vantage point of a peer reviewer, diverging from conventional editorials and commentaries authored by editors.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>Acknowledging the shrinking reviewer pool, this viewpoint suggests a mandatory “review for review” system alongside incentives like editorial positions, while considering financial rewards for reviewers. The rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in review prompts ethical concerns but offers solutions for handling diverse submissions and dealing with “Reviewer 2.” While embracing open review for its transparency, potential pitfalls surrounding article confidence and copyright require attention. Ultimately, this viewpoint advocates for a collaborative approach, valuing reviewers, exploring innovative solutions, navigating ethical dilemmas in the technological age and implementing transparent practices responsibly for the betterment of scholarly discourse.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>This viewpoint highlights the invaluable contributions of reviewers, enriching the scholarly community and promoting intellectual growth.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":48294,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Services Marketing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Viewpoint: the evolving landscape of peer review\",\"authors\":\"Emmanuel Mogaji\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jsm-09-2023-0325\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Purpose</h3>\\n<p>The purpose of this viewpoint is to spotlight the role of reviewers within the collaborative triad of academic publishing. It argues that the significance of reviewers is often disregarded, leading to a gap in our understanding of the peer review process. This perspective emphasizes reviewers as unsung heroes in the publishing ecosystem, providing intentional and thought-provoking insights into the less-discussed yet impactful developments in the evolving peer review landscape.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\\n<p>Leveraging the author’s distinguished background as a recipient of the <em>Journal of Service Marketing</em> Outstanding Reviewer Award, this paper offers a personal reflection and synthesised viewpoints on the peer review process. Serving as a representative voice for reviewers, it provides insightful perspectives from the vantage point of a peer reviewer, diverging from conventional editorials and commentaries authored by editors.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Findings</h3>\\n<p>Acknowledging the shrinking reviewer pool, this viewpoint suggests a mandatory “review for review” system alongside incentives like editorial positions, while considering financial rewards for reviewers. The rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in review prompts ethical concerns but offers solutions for handling diverse submissions and dealing with “Reviewer 2.” While embracing open review for its transparency, potential pitfalls surrounding article confidence and copyright require attention. Ultimately, this viewpoint advocates for a collaborative approach, valuing reviewers, exploring innovative solutions, navigating ethical dilemmas in the technological age and implementing transparent practices responsibly for the betterment of scholarly discourse.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\\n<p>This viewpoint highlights the invaluable contributions of reviewers, enriching the scholarly community and promoting intellectual growth.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\",\"PeriodicalId\":48294,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Services Marketing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Services Marketing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jsm-09-2023-0325\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Services Marketing","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jsm-09-2023-0325","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 本观点旨在强调审稿人在学术出版三方合作中的作用。它认为,审稿人的重要性常常被忽视,导致我们对同行评审过程的理解出现偏差。这一视角强调审稿人是出版生态系统中的无名英雄,对同行评审不断发展过程中较少被讨论但却具有影响力的发展提供了有意的、发人深省的见解。设计/方法/途径本文作者曾荣获《服务营销期刊》杰出审稿人奖,凭借这一杰出背景,本文对同行评审过程进行了个人反思并综合了各种观点。作为审稿人的代表,本文从同行审稿人的视角出发,提出了独到的见解,有别于编辑撰写的传统社论和评论。研究结果在承认审稿人队伍不断缩小的同时,本文建议在考虑对审稿人进行经济奖励的同时,建立强制性的 "以审代评 "制度,并辅以编辑职位等激励措施。生成式人工智能(AI)在审稿中的兴起引发了伦理方面的担忧,但也为处理不同的投稿和应对 "审稿人 2 "提供了解决方案。虽然开放式审稿因其透明度而受到欢迎,但围绕文章保密性和版权的潜在隐患也需要关注。最终,该观点主张采取合作的方式,重视审稿人,探索创新的解决方案,在技术时代应对伦理困境,并负责任地实施透明的做法,以改善学术讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Viewpoint: the evolving landscape of peer review

Purpose

The purpose of this viewpoint is to spotlight the role of reviewers within the collaborative triad of academic publishing. It argues that the significance of reviewers is often disregarded, leading to a gap in our understanding of the peer review process. This perspective emphasizes reviewers as unsung heroes in the publishing ecosystem, providing intentional and thought-provoking insights into the less-discussed yet impactful developments in the evolving peer review landscape.

Design/methodology/approach

Leveraging the author’s distinguished background as a recipient of the Journal of Service Marketing Outstanding Reviewer Award, this paper offers a personal reflection and synthesised viewpoints on the peer review process. Serving as a representative voice for reviewers, it provides insightful perspectives from the vantage point of a peer reviewer, diverging from conventional editorials and commentaries authored by editors.

Findings

Acknowledging the shrinking reviewer pool, this viewpoint suggests a mandatory “review for review” system alongside incentives like editorial positions, while considering financial rewards for reviewers. The rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in review prompts ethical concerns but offers solutions for handling diverse submissions and dealing with “Reviewer 2.” While embracing open review for its transparency, potential pitfalls surrounding article confidence and copyright require attention. Ultimately, this viewpoint advocates for a collaborative approach, valuing reviewers, exploring innovative solutions, navigating ethical dilemmas in the technological age and implementing transparent practices responsibly for the betterment of scholarly discourse.

Originality/value

This viewpoint highlights the invaluable contributions of reviewers, enriching the scholarly community and promoting intellectual growth.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
20.50%
发文量
63
期刊介绍: ■Customer policy and service ■Marketing of services ■Marketing planning ■Service marketing abroad ■Service quality Capturing and retaining customers in a service industry is a vastly different activity to its product-based counterpart. The fickle nature of today"s consumer is a vital factor in understanding the factors which determine successful holding of market share - and the intense competition within the sector means practitioners must keep pace with new developments if they are to outwit competitors and develop customer loyalty.
期刊最新文献
Cite me! Perspectives on coercive citation in reviewing Editorial: Embracing the future of services marketing Customer churn analysis using feature optimization methods and tree-based classifiers Low-income consumers’ informal and formal financial service experiences: perceptions of access, inclusion, and social dependence Enhancing customer engagement behaviors via customer-to-customer interactions and identification
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1