Case 80. Selection of Reviewers -- Competing approaches in a field

Situation

Vern Baron, an editor, receives a paper in a sub-field that is divided into competing approaches. Followers of a given approach rarely cite work using the other and vice versa, and if they do, it is to dispute its validity.

Questions

1.    What is Baron's responsibility in selecting reviewers? Should he select only reviewers whose approaches are compatible with that of a paper in one or another of these competing approaches?
2.    What is Baron's responsibility to the journal he edits and to the sociological community?  Should referees reflect the diversity of approaches in the sub-field?


     Reflect on the above questions and form your own answers before clicking the Discussion key to review the commentary provided with this case.

Discussion

Editors are obligated to maintain objective and reliable reviewing of submissions. When a field divides into competing approaches, the competition may lead to orthodoxy of approaches and stagnation of the field. Editors can help curb such tendencies by getting reviews from followers of the two approaches. In evaluating the reviews, the rivalry between the approaches should be kept in mind in making a publication decision. In the event of a strong positive and a strong negative opinion, a third review from a specialist in a related field might be sought.