The role of everyday citizens in the production of knowledge has become central to the study of media sociology. This interest is fueled by the growth of information communication…
Abstract
The role of everyday citizens in the production of knowledge has become central to the study of media sociology. This interest is fueled by the growth of information communication technologies that have made it easier for amateurs to produce and disseminate content. The world of book reviewing – an exemplar of a field transformed by digitalization – concerns about the rise of amateurs manifests in the grievance that, “Nowadays, everyone’s a critic.” This chapter empirically investigates this idea by asking: Who is qualified to be a reviewer? The chapter draws on in-depth interviews with review editors, critics, and bloggers who have successfully crossed over to publish in some of the most important outlets in the English-publishing field. Analysis reveals that openness is central to ideas of what qualifies someone to be a book reviewer and how reviewers subsequently get work. Openness, however, is an example of noncertifiable skills, which are ascertained primarily through informal methods such as turning toward one’s personal and professional networks for recommendations from peers or relying on personal face-to-face encounters. A practical consequence of this selection criterion is that only reviewers who are known to book review editors in this specific way (i.e., their tastes and esthetic openness) are eligible candidates for professional review assignments. In this way, the commitment to openness as a professional value among book reviewers actually operates as a mechanism of closing their occupational boundaries.
Details
Keywords
As the field of strategic management has evolved, expectations for the empirical evidence presented in manuscripts have risen substantially. Rather than a single model testing a…
Abstract
As the field of strategic management has evolved, expectations for the empirical evidence presented in manuscripts have risen substantially. Rather than a single model testing a hypothesis with a p-value below a standard threshold being sufficient, reviewers, editors, and eventual readers now demand additional evidence including multiple tests, advanced statistical models, alternative specifications, interpretation of practical rather than just statistical significance, and more. Reviewers appear to be increasingly skeptical and often raise a seemingly endless number of questions. In this chapter, I outline the idea of a body of evidence and suggest ways authors can build their evidence by anticipating reviewer questions and structuring manuscripts accordingly. Doing so allows authors to overcome skepticism by building positive rapport and trust with reviewers and the ultimate readers of their work. I conclude by discussing the review process where I offer suggestions about how reviewers and editors might adapt to this changing landscape. I specifically argue that all studies are flawed. Rather than asking for a single study to do more to address small inconsistencies or puzzling results, I suggest gatekeepers in the review process should consider the possibility that publishing and allowing research conversations to flourish might result in greater knowledge generation over time.
Details
Keywords
Suzan Burton, Debra Z. Basil, Alena Soboleva and Paul Nesbit
This study builds on previous discussion of an important area for both academics and academic journals – the issue of reviewers inappropriately asking for (or “coercing”) citation…
Abstract
Purpose
This study builds on previous discussion of an important area for both academics and academic journals – the issue of reviewers inappropriately asking for (or “coercing”) citation of their own work. That situation creates an opportunity for (hopefully a small number of) academics to engage in unethical behaviour, often with the goal of increasing their citation count. This study aims to draw attention to this often-overlooked issue, critically considering potential reviewer motivations and offering possible remedies.
Design/methodology/approach
This study reviews literature and critically discusses this issue, offering a typology for coercive citation suggestions and sharing previously unpublished commentary from Editors of leading journals.
Findings
This study provides a typology of reviewer motivations for coercing citations, suggests potential remedies and considers the positive and negative impacts of these suggestions.
Originality/value
This study identifies an area known from multiple discussions to be important to academics and Editors, where many want changes in journals’ practices. In response, this study provides recommendations for easy changes that would decrease the opportunity for unethical behaviour by reviewers and also, for some journals, improve the quality of reviews.
Details
Keywords
Mohammad Abdolmohammadi and Alan Reinstein
Prior research suggests that perceived levels of a subordinate auditor’s competence affects audit reviewers’ judgments. We extend this line of research by investigating the…
Abstract
Prior research suggests that perceived levels of a subordinate auditor’s competence affects audit reviewers’ judgments. We extend this line of research by investigating the effects of perceived client competence (hereafter, ClientComp) and its interaction with subordinate auditor’s competence (hereafter, AuditorComp) on audit reviewers’ judgments. Using data from highly experienced CPA audit managers, senior managers, and partners, we find a significant main effect for AuditorComp, but not for ClientComp. We also find that when AuditorComp is high, levels of ClientComp do not affect audit reviewers’ judgments. However, we cannot support the hypothesis that when AuditorComp is low ClientComp will significantly affect audit reviewers’ judgments. These mixed results suggest that in the post-SOX (2002) era regulatory environment, audit reviewers may be exercising heightened professional skepticism about ClientComp whenever they consider clients’ assertions.
Details
Keywords
Moonkyoung Jang, Saerom Lee and Hyunmi Baek
As online reviews have become a potent marketing tool, the underlying motivation has come into question. Focus has shifted towards assessing reviewer credibility before appraising…
Abstract
Purpose
As online reviews have become a potent marketing tool, the underlying motivation has come into question. Focus has shifted towards assessing reviewer credibility before appraising online review credibility. Guided by source credibility theory, this study investigates the effect of reviewers’ historical ratings on review helpfulness to gain insight into the role of reviewer credibility.
Design/methodology/approach
We explore readers’ underlying psychological processes using web data analysis (Study 1) and experiments (Study 2). Study 1 empirically examines the effect of reviewers’ historical ratings on review helpfulness using 100,621 reviews authored by 890 TripAdvisor reviewers. Study 2 involves two experiments with 328 participants to scrutinize the readers’ underlying mechanisms in establishing reviewer credibility, with a specific focus on the effect of reviewers’ historical ratings.
Findings
When a reviewer’s historical ratings are predominantly extreme, readers perceive the reviewer as less credible, leading to decreased helpfulness in reviews authored by that reviewer. Interestingly, high negativity in historical ratings does not have a significant effect on either reviewer credibility or review helpfulness.
Originality/value
This study offers two significant contributions to the existing literature. First, it extends previous research on review helpfulness by incorporating reviewers’ historical rating behavior. This provides a more comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence the perceived usefulness of reviews. Second, it integrates two distinct research methods: TripAdvisor web data analysis and experiments. This methodological synthesis enhances the robustness of the study by offering a more nuanced and well-rounded perspective on the dynamics between reviewers’ historical ratings and perceived helpfulness of reviews.
Details
Keywords
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…
Abstract
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.
Details
Keywords
Based on self-determination theory (SDT), this study aims to determine the motivation factors of reviewers writing long reviews in the anime industry.
Abstract
Purpose
Based on self-determination theory (SDT), this study aims to determine the motivation factors of reviewers writing long reviews in the anime industry.
Design/methodology/approach
This study analyzes 171,188 online review data collected from an online anime community (MyAnimeList.net).
Findings
The findings show that intensity of emotions, experience in writing reviews and helpful votes in past reviews are the most important factors and positively influence review length. The overall rating of the anime moderates the effects of some motivation factors. Moreover, reviewers commenting on their favorite or nonfavorite anime also have varied motivation factors. Furthermore, this study has addressed the p-value problem due to the large sample size.
Research limitations/implications
This study provides a comprehensive and theoretical understanding of reviewers' motivation for writing long reviews.
Practical implications
Online communities can incorporate the insights from this study into website design and motivate reviewers to write long reviews.
Originality/value
Many past studies have investigated what reviews are more helpful. Review length is the most important factor of review helpfulness and positively affects it. However, few studies have examined the determinants of review length. This study attempts to address this issue.
Details
Keywords
Xiao Peng, Hessam Vali, Xixian Peng, Jingjun (David) Xu and Mehmet Bayram Yildirim
The study examines the potential moderating effects of repeating purchase cues and product knowledge on the relationship between the varying consistency of the review set and…
Abstract
Purpose
The study examines the potential moderating effects of repeating purchase cues and product knowledge on the relationship between the varying consistency of the review set and causal attribution. This study also investigates how causal attribution correlates with the perceived misleadingness of the review set.
Design/methodology/approach
A scenario-based experiment was conducted with 170 participants to explore the relationship between the consistency of the review set and causal attribution and how repeating purchase cues and product knowledge moderates this relationship.
Findings
Findings suggest that inconsistent review sets lead to more product (vs reviewer) attribution than consistent review sets. The repeating purchase cues mitigate the negative relationship between the consistency of the review set and product attribution, whereas product knowledge mitigates the positive relationship between the consistency of the review set and reviewer attribution. Furthermore, the results indicate that high product attribution and low reviewer attribution are associated with low perceived misleadingness.
Originality/value
This study is novel because it examines the moderating effects of repeating purchase cues and product knowledge on the relationship between the consistency of the review set and causal attribution. It adds to the literature by shedding light on the causal attribution process underlying the formation of perceived misleadingness of online reviews. The findings of this study provide valuable insights for managers on how to enhance the positive effects of consistent review sets and mitigate the negative effects of inconsistent review sets.
Details
Keywords
Allan Farias Fávaro, Roderval Marcelino and Cristian Cechinel
This paper presents a review of the state of the art on the application of blockchain and smart contracts to the peer-review process of scientific papers. The paper seeks to…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper presents a review of the state of the art on the application of blockchain and smart contracts to the peer-review process of scientific papers. The paper seeks to analyse how the main characteristics of the existing blockchain solutions in this field to detect opportunities for the improvement of future applications.
Design/methodology/approach
A systematic review of the literature on the subject was carried out in three databases recognized by the research community (IEEE Xplore, Scopus and Web of Science) and the Frontiers in Blockchain journal. A total of 1,967 articles were initially found, and after the exclusion process, the 26 remaining articles were classified according to the following dimensions: System Type, Open Access, Review Type, Reviewer Incentive, Token Economy, Blockchain Access, Blockchain Identification, Blockchain Used, Paper Storage, Anonymity and Maturity of the solution.
Findings
Results show that the solutions are normally concerned on offering incentives to the reviewers' work (often monetary). Other common general preferences among the solutions are the adoption of open reviews, the use of Ethereum, the implementation of publishing ecosystems and the use of InterPlanetary File System to the storage of the papers.
Originality/value
There are currently no studies covering the main aspects of blockchain solutions in the field of scientific peer review. The present study provides an overall review of the topic, summarizing important information on the current research and helping new adopters to develop solutions grounded on the existing literature.