Dr James Cunningham
Vice President for Research
Peer review is probably the most under-celebrated but crucially important aspect of what we do as a scholarly community.
Versions of peer review have circulated academia for centuries but became more formalised by scientific journals in the 1960s and 1970s. Through peer review, we try to control for bias in the knowledge that is accepted and given credibility by our research community (for a good discussion on the history of peer review in scientific communities and the various biases we are vulnerable to see Lee et al., 2013). With robust review processes in place, we can be confident in our collective production of knowledge and ensure a vibrancy in the work that we celebrate.
By its nature, anonymous peer review is a relatively mundane act, offering no tangible reward, relying on voluntary service, and often attracting the derision of frustrated authors. We are rarely taught ‘how’ to review, and there is no mechanical process to suit every paper under review and every individual reviewer. Instead, reviewing is something of an art (Lepak, 2009), especially in the social sciences, and at its best, a constructive part in the development of a piece. While the reviewer is often unnamed and often unloved, at ISBE we do not see this role as a simple gatekeeper to the scholarly community. Instead, we see review processes as actively shaping our field knowledge (Babin & Moulard, 2018).
With these thoughts in mind, we have worked hard to revitalise our review processes. In this blog post, I outline the key principles of our approach: Inclusion, Transparency, and Community. This is followed by details of our refreshed ISBE Peer Review processes.
Inclusion: Opportunity and expectations
To begin, it is important to establish what we mean by ‘peer’. At ISBE, we see our entire membership as a community of peers. And for the development of knowledge, we need as much of this community as possible to be involved in the peer review process.
There are at least four roles at ISBE which we have purposefully built into ISBE Peer Review:
- ISBE Fellows: Those who have been recognised by ISBE for their impact and commitment to the field of small business and entrepreneurship. ISBE Fellows provide an authoritative voice on the relevance and direction of ISBE knowledge.
- ISBE Board of Directors: Including Trustees, who are elected members of the Board of Directors, and the Executive Committee, with named responsibility for the areas of work conducted by ISBE. The Board have collective responsibility for the direction and future ISBE work.
- SIG Chairs/Track Chairs: Those tasked with running individual SIG events and community building and/or the paper tracks at ISBE Conference.
- Broader membership: Both individual members and those benefiting from organisational membership.
ISBE peer review does not work without the collective effort the above roles. To enhance inclusion in the process, we have introduced an annual ‘Call for Reviewers’ – open in advance of ISBE Conference submission and RAKE Fund applications.
As part of the ‘Call for Reviewers’, this year we included a developmental webinar for ISBE members, performed in early May, to explain the ISBE review processes and outline the expectations of volunteer reviewers.
Interested members were then asked to complete a short survey where they could volunteer themselves, outline any reviewing experience they have, and nominate their areas of expertise and methodological preferences. We utilised the Early Career Researcher Forum to ensure ECR Representatives are involved, but this ‘Call for Reviewers’ was open to all ISBE members. It is planned that this process will be repeated each year, allowing for new members and those who want to become involved to engage.
By opening involvement in ISBE peer review, we broaden our collective production of knowledge and embrace the broad church that ISBE represents, but more importantly, this allows for everyone to get involved with ISBE – whether you are attending Conference or not.
Transparency: Evaluation of your ISBE submissions
We exist in times where the legitimacy of knowledge is contested. One of the most effective strategies to combat challenges to legitimacy, is transparency.
With the development of open and clear peer review processes, the journey of ISBE work is exposed, instilling greater trust the knowledge outcomes achieved. The stages of peer review across both RAKE Fund applications and ISBE Conference submissions are outlined at the end of this article. These processes have been developed by the Vice President for Research and approved by the ISBE Board of Directors in early 2026.
It is hoped that this level of transparency gives confidence that your applications and submissions to ISBE are managed with as much fairness and control for bias as possible. Also, with transparent processes, knowledge developed through ISBE maintains a legitimacy to the outside world.
Finally, as part of the processes outlined below, we have been able to offer individualised feedback on each RAKE application submitted, and authors of ISBE Conference submission will benefit from more robust and constructive feedback as they develop papers. Thus, a more transparent review process means more developmental structures for ISBE members.
Community: Co-development of knowledge
ISBE is lucky to have such a broad, knowledgeable, and engaged community. As we develop more inclusive and transparent review processes, we look to mechanise these relationships within the community.
We have re-designed review panels to bring together the voices of established ISBE Fellows with Early Career Researcher and all other areas of the ISBE community, ensuring a holistic view on submissions. Our review panels are purposefully constructed to offer a future orientation while maintaining the high standards we have set for reliable research work. This approach not only broadens perspectives on submitted work, but it also allows for greater variety of submission to be processed. Utilising a broader range of expertise in the review process means we can be more open to different subject areas and alternative methodologies.
Obviously, our ISBE Fellows are key here. These well-regarded and impactful members of the ISBE community are brought in for two specific areas of review, the RAKE Fund and Higher Order Paper Awards. For the RAKE Fund, all ISBE Fellows are offered the opportunity to review a small cluster of applications – themed to subject areas. Their scoring and comment of the RAKE applications, in combination with that of others in the panel, is an important consideration in award decisions. Similarly, with the Higher Order Paper Awards at ISBE Conference, ISBE Fellows are vital in judging the shortlisted papers form the Tracks.
We are very aware that the review process relies on volunteers. As I say, we are lucky to have such an engaged ISBE community. We thank every ISBE member who has volunteered their time in these important processes.
Outcome: Acknowledgment of review work
The role of the reviewer is important. Moving forward, we want to acknowledge this role as much as possible. When plan to introduce a ‘best reviewer’ award to celebrate the contributions of reviewers and, in time, build further training and development for this important role in the development of scholarly work.
No review process is perfect. As an author, when it goes well for you, it’s great, when it goes badly, it’s not fit for purpose. With these re-vitalised ISBE Peer Review processes, we have tried to embrace the open and friendly culture for which ISBE is famous. By following the principals of Inclusion, Transparency, and Community we hope that our processes demonstrate our ambitions.
ISBE Peer Review processes
There are two main areas where peer review is necessary at ISBE:
- RAKE Fund applications
- ISBE Conference submissions.
Each is now taken in turn.
RAKE Fund applications
ISBE’s Research and Knowledge Exchange (RAKE) Fund offers financial support to new research activities. An annual call is produced by the Vice President for Research and normally accepts applications until June. At this point, the following review process takes place:
- Initial desk screening for suitability, completeness, potential conflict of interest, and relevance to call.
- Anonymised review (scoring and comment) by panel of peers. Including at least one ISBE Fellow (or nominated Board Member) and one ECR Representative.
- Collated scoring and comment for each submission reviewed by the Vice President for Research and President to create shortlist.
- Shortlisted applications evaluated by Vice President and President based on based on panel scoring, balance of subject area, diversity of methodological approach, and appropriateness of applicant CVs.
- Final selection of successful applications within budgetary controls.
Note: Following the criteria of the award, the VP Research and President are responsible for ensuing no previous winner is lead applicant on a newly successful bid. VP Research/President decision is final, based on input from the review process. Any conflict of interest is noted at the earliest possible stage, proactively avoiding anonymised reviewer conflict, and arranging for alternative reviews where conflict is made apparent in the process. Examples of conflict may include (but are not limited to): institutional relationships between applicant(s) and reviewer, co-author relationships, previous involvement at ISBE Board level.
ISBE Conference submissions
There are two stages of peer review for an ISBE Conference submission: Abstract and Final Paper. Both stages happen at the level of the ISBE Track.
Abstract
- Abstract/paper submitted to ISBE Conference Call for Submissions
- Track chair arranges for (ideally) two independent reviewers to evaluate the submission and provide feedback on the Oxford Abstracts platform.
a. Database held on reviewer volunteers from the ‘Call for Reviewers’ – details provided to Chair at start of review process. Chairs encouraged to utilise ECR volunteers as one of the two reviewers.
b. Track chair responsible for avoiding conflict of interest and final decision when disagreement exists between reviewers.
c. Abstract reviews are designed to be constructive and encourage stronger paper development.
3. Feedback released to authors including decisions Acceptance to Conference.
Final paper
- Review process repeated, Trak Chair ensuring two reviews for each full paper submission.
a. Reviews designed to encourage constructive paper presentation at conference.
5. Feedback released to authors to aid in paper development.
Note: as the Abstract stage can involve a quick turnaround of review, it may not be possible for the Track Chair to organise for two independent reviewers – though they are encouraged to do so. Two independent reviews are necessary at final paper stage for the submission to be considered for Higher Order Paper Awards.
Higher Order Paper Awards
There are three Higher Order Paper Awards available at ISBE Conference, these are: Best Overall Conference Paper; President’s Award for Best ECR Paper; Best Research and Knowledge Exchange. These are announced at the ISBE Conference Gala Dinner.
- Track Chair nominates ‘Best in Track’ paper award based on reviews collected at the final paper stage (only full paper submissions are eligible for this).
- Chair also nominates individual papers for consideration among the three Higher Order Paper Awards.
- Panel made up of ISBE Fellow(s) along with VP Research and President (or deputy) judge the nominated papers with view to awarding in the three categories.
a. ISBE Fellow volunteers state availability to judge submissions.
b. VP Research and President responsible for avoiding conflict of interest and ensuring appropriate ISBE Trustee expertise in judging process.
c. ISBE Fellows expected to ‘comment’ and score nominated submissions using a common template, as opposed to full review.
d. Ideally, two independent ISBE Fellows used for each Higher Order Paper Award (in addition to VP and President review and collation of ISBE Fellow feedback).
Exceptions to the above: Alistair Anderson Publication Prize for an ECR (Entrepreneurship & Regional Development); ISBJ Best Paper Award for Pushing the Boundaries of Research (International Small Business Journal); IJEBR Best Paper Award for Focussing on Entrepreneurial Behaviour (International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research). These are awards sponsored by the individual journals, with respective editors responsible for award decisions. Shortlists of track nominated papers are provided to the journals for their own process of editorial review. Winner announced at the ISBE Conference Gala Dinner alongside the three Higher Order Paper Awards.
I hope this overview of the refreshed ISBE Peer Review processes has been helpful. As always, please feel free to reach out to me or anyone in the Executive Committee if there is anything we can help with.
References
Babin, B. J., & Moulard, J. G. (2018). To what is the review process relevant? What’s right and what’s wrong with peer review for academic business journals. European Business Review, 30(2), 145-156.
Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2-17.
Lepak, D. (2009). Editor’s comments: What is good reviewing?. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 375-381.