IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/gender/v28y2021i4p1638-1642.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What can critical femininity offer reviewing? A case for reviewing with empathy

Author

Listed:
  • Lilith A. Whiley

Abstract

In academia, hegemonic patriarchal norms equate scientific quality with masculinity, and reviewing has followed in this tradition often channeling an angry army general instead of an empathetic peer invested in supporting the development of a manuscript. Indeed, femininity and emotionality are ostracized in favor of “rational” and “scholarly” (masculine) “science.” What can, then, critical femininity offer reviewing? In this piece, I put a case forward for reviewing with empathy.

Suggested Citation

  • Lilith A. Whiley, 2021. "What can critical femininity offer reviewing? A case for reviewing with empathy," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 1638-1642, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:gender:v:28:y:2021:i:4:p:1638-1642
    DOI: 10.1111/gwao.12640
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12640
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/gwao.12640?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lutz Bornmann & Christophe Weymuth & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2010. "A content analysis of referees’ comments: how do comments on manuscripts rejected by a high-impact journal and later published in either a low- or high-impact journal differ?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(2), pages 493-506, May.
    2. Heather Savigny, 2017. "Cultural Sexism is Ordinary: Writing and Re-Writing Women in Academia," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(6), pages 643-655, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Embiya Celik & Nuray Gedik & Güler Karaman & Turgay Demirel & Yuksel Goktas, 2014. "Mistakes encountered in manuscripts on education and their effects on journal rejections," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1837-1853, March.
    2. Mónica Lopes & Virgínia Ferreira & Caynnã Santos, 2023. "Gendered Micropolitics in Academic Work Environments: Uncovering Microaggressions during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-22, August.
    3. Niccolò Casnici & Francisco Grimaldo & Nigel Gilbert & Pierpaolo Dondio & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2017. "Assessing peer review by gauging the fate of rejected manuscripts: the case of the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 533-546, October.
    4. Y. Shymko & N. Vershinina & M. Daskalaki & G. Azevedo & C. Quental, 2024. "From the cocoon to la chape de plomb: The birth and persistence of silence around sexism in academia," Post-Print hal-04680678, HAL.
    5. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    6. Bornmann, Lutz & Schier, Hermann & Marx, Werner & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2012. "What factors determine citation counts of publications in chemistry besides their quality?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 11-18.
    7. Sugimoto, Cassidy R. & Larivière, Vincent & Ni, Chaoqun & Cronin, Blaise, 2013. "Journal acceptance rates: A cross-disciplinary analysis of variability and relationships with journal measures," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 897-906.
    8. Meva Bayrak Karsli & Sinem Karabey & Nergiz Ercil Cagiltay & Yuksel Goktas, 2018. "Comparison of the discussion sections of PhD dissertations in educational technology: the case of Turkey and the USA," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1381-1403, December.
    9. Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Citation gamesmanship: testing for evidence of ego bias in peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 851-862, June.
    10. Kirsten Locke & Rebecca W. B. Lund & Susan Wright, 2021. "Rethinking gender equity in the contaminated university: A methodology for listening for music in the ruins," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 1079-1097, May.
    11. Charles W. Fox, 2017. "Difficulty of recruiting reviewers predicts review scores and editorial decisions at six journals of ecology and evolution," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 465-477, October.
    12. Lutz Bornmann & Hermann Schier & Werner Marx & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2011. "Does the h index for assessing single publications really work? A case study on papers published in chemistry," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(3), pages 835-843, December.
    13. Lima, João Paulo Resende de & Casa Nova, Silvia Pereira de Castro & Vendramin, Elisabeth de Oliveira, 2024. "Sexist academic socialization and feminist resistance: (de)constructing women’s (dis)placement in Brazilian accounting academia," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    14. Anna‐Liisa Kaasila‐Pakanen, 2021. "Close encounters: Creating embodied spaces of resistance to marginalization and disempowering representation of difference in organization," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 1805-1822, September.
    15. Rüdiger Mutz & Lutz Bornmann & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2015. "Testing for the fairness and predictive validity of research funding decisions: A multilevel multiple imputation for missing data approach using ex-ante and ex-post peer evaluation data from the Austr," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(11), pages 2321-2339, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:gender:v:28:y:2021:i:4:p:1638-1642. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0968-6673 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.