Check out the editorial, in which Senior Associate Editor Donald O. Neubaum discusses the domain of family business research and offers suggestions to future scholars.
Given the fact that FBR is only in its 31st year of publication, the field of family business research is relatively young compared with other disciplines within business. However, interest in family business research is growing at a phenomenal rate as, on average, almost 900 research articles on family business have been published every year since 2010 (which greatly exceeds the 30 and 230 articles written on average, per year, in the 1980’s and 1990’s, respectively). The variety of special issues in journals from disciplines outside of family business is further evidence of the widespread interest of other business scholars in family business phenomena. In fact, our discipline has had a long history of reaching out to scholars in disparate fields, as witnessed by special issues early in FBR’s existence on philanthropy in family foundations (1990), women in family businesses (1990), and international business (1991).
To learn more about the journal, visit FBR’s homepage!
For reviewers, anonymity can be both a good thing and a bad thing. While anonymous reviews allow reviewer’s freedom to evaluate submissions solely based on merit, anonymity also means that reviewers are left unrecognized for their thoughtful yet time-consuming work. It would seem that this trade-off has made reviewing less of an attractive opportunity for potential reviewers. In their article, “Harry Potter in the Academy: Reviewing and Our Own Cloak of Invisibility,“ published in the current issueof Journal of Management Education, Kathy Lund Dean and Jeanie M. Forray offer a thought-provoking discussion of the flaws and merits of the blind review process, including why change is necessary to attract new reviewers. The article begs the question, is it possible that in the future, reviewers will cast off their Invisibility Cloaks, so to speak, and receive more recognition?
From the editorial:
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.
The reference section of an academic work is more complex than you might think. The references not only provide validity to one’s argument, but initiate meaningful discussion with the scholarly community. So how can authors ensure that their references are successful? Allison W. Pearson of Mississippi State University and Family Business Review Editor-in-Chief Pramodita Sharma discuss the process for perfecting citations in their editorial “Referencing in Scholarly Articles: What Is Just Right?”
From the editorial:
The scholarly reference (1) gives credit to the original source of materials used and (2) provides evidence of the depth and breadth of scholarly work, via the materials reviewed, integrated, and synthesized to form the basis of the research. The reference list of a manuscript reflects the authors’ due diligence in exploring and understanding the research topic. To situate its contribution, a scientific text must establish a context and convey to readers the extent and nature of its relationship to the existing literature. References are the means to establish this context and the nature of contribution (Locke & Golden-Biddle, 1997).
References, then, serve as a critical component of the scholarly article, worthy of careful time and attention by authors, and careful review and evaluation by reviewers and readers. The goal of this editorial is to provide a thought-provoking discussion of references in the scholarly manuscript and identifying key points to be considered in selecting and presenting references for publication in family business and other areas in management and organizational research.
Founded in 1960, Business & Society was the first journal exclusively dedicated to publishing research in the field of business and society. In their editorial from the upcoming July issue of Business & Society, editors Andrew Crane, Irene Henriques, Bryan Husted, and Dirk Matten discuss the scope of the business and society field relevant to the journal.
From the editorial:
Our vision for Business & Society is for the journal to become the leading, peer-reviewed outlet for scholarly work dealing specifically with the intersection of business and society. So what counts as the intersection of business and society? As a journal, we have to determine the boundaries of the field that we are covering. Certainly, we have found that when making decisions on whether manuscripts should go out for review, we must first decide whether the manuscript fits the journal. This is not an exact science—it is always a judgment call—but as editors, we feel it is necessary to provide prospective authors some guidance on what, in our opinion, fits and does not fit. As such the purpose of this Editors’ Insight is to clarify some of our thinking on this issue.
It can be discouraging for instructors who, after taking the time to prepare a lesson plan, find their students texting rather than taking notes in class. Educators across all disciplines and state lines are faced with the dilemma of how to respond. Is it a sign of disrespect or simply the burgeoning of a new generational divide?
A closer look at the numbers shows that the issue isn’t limited to a few problem students. A study conducted by Barney McCoy of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln found that of the 777 students surveyed, more than 80% admitted to using their phone for non-academic related reasons during class. Undergraduates were the heaviest users, reaching for their phones an average of 11 times per school day, while graduate students came in at an average of 4 uses. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly Editor Melinda Knight discusses this issue in her editorial entitled “What to Do About Texting?”
Right before the first required oral presentation in this class, I asked everyone once again to turn phones off and give full attention to each speaker. As I was saying this, one student, whom I had previously asked to stop texting on several occasions, continued to text away until I stopped speaking all together. Usually, this kind of dramatic action will help make everyone aware of the problem, yet for the rest of the semester I had only limited success in convincing students that texting during class and especially when others were giving presentations was not professional behavior. Worse yet, I continually had to answer the same questions from students who did not hear what we had previously discussed because of texting. Perhaps the apparent lack of respect for everyone, instructor and students, is what has bothered me the most about this problem.