Abstract

This paper reports on an in-process autoethnographic study of the paper review process to determine whether criticisms of the process as enforcing “normal science” (Kuhn, 1996) and suppressing new ideas are accurate. The study follows my experiences and reactions to review comments, along with the rationale for my subsequent decisions, both in my current role as a tenured full professor and in my prior role as an untenured assistant professor. To this point, I have submitted to a major journal and to a pre-review to another. So far, I have found that editors’ limitations in experience narrow what is acceptable for publication, thereby enforcing normal science and restricting the flow of new ideas.

Download

Share

COinS