Equal Opportunities International - setting out the research agenda

Citation

Ozbilgin, M. (2006), "Equal Opportunities International - setting out the research agenda", Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 25 No. 5. https://doi.org/10.1108/eoi.2006.03025eaa.001

Equal Opportunities International - setting out the research agenda

Equal Opportunities International – setting out the research agenda

Having prepared several issues of Equal Opportunities International for publication this year, editorial board members need to be congratulated for providing essential support to the triple blind review system and its demanding processes involving multiple reviews and revisions. The peer review process has become a complex endeavour due to the breadth and depth of scholarly works as well as multiplicity of methodological perspectives in the field of equal opportunities. I will attempt to explain the underlying logic of the triple blind review process in order to guide future submissions.

Upon receiving submissions, I read them for thematic and methodological fit with the aims and objectives of the journal. If I identify any glaring obfuscation in thematic, theoretical, empirical or methodological elaborations of the paper, I also explain these to the author, but allow the authors to pass the paper to the reviewers, with or without revisions. In selecting three reviewers, I try to achieve a balanced view about the paper, by sending the paper to reviewers with whose papers or methodological approaches the manuscript engages. I also draw on the expertise of the review board members. Identifying a suitable reviewer and soliciting a review is a rather taxing part of the editorial role. Although very few potential reviewers turn down reviews, it is time consuming to try to recruit multiple reviewers for some highly specialised topic areas.

Reviewers are given 30 days to complete their reviews. They are sent reminders a week before the end of this deadline. Upon receipt of the three reviewers' comments, one of the three editorial decisions is communicated to the authors: revise, rewrite or reject. Revise decisions are saved for the papers where there is a broad agreement by the three reviewers about the suitability of the paper for publication. A rewrite decision is offered if the reviewers broadly agree that the paper displays merit but has to be substantially re-written. A reject decision is made when the three reviewers are unanimous in their decision that the paper is not suitable for publication in the journal. The revise and reject decisions are currently rare as the reviews often generate rewrite decisions.

One of the key strengths of the review process of the Equal Opportunities International is that the reviews generate extensive developmental feedback. The review process is not merely about arriving at a judgement, it is mainly viewed as a process through which constructive criticism can be delivered in a collegial manner. Therefore, academic bullying which plagues the style and content of review decisions in many journals is not welcome for the review process of submissions to EOI.

There are several common themes, which seem to emerge in review feedback. Most reviewers request, for example, that manuscript submissions engage with the current literature in a more rigorous way. This requires the authors to relate their manuscripts to academic literature and empirical studies. Reviewers also often highlight a need for contextual sophistication to reveal the international dimensions of each paper. This again requires the authors to engage with geographically specific studies and present their work in a more context specific fashion.

One of the key expectations of the reviewers is that the papers should provide a balanced diet of description, prescription and critical assessment. This means that the papers should be written in a style, which is accessible for the novices of the subject and yet they should provide insights which are original, sophisticated and interesting enough for the seasoned scholars in the field. This balancing act is not easily achieved. However, the review process often generates sufficient elaboration on how this may be attained.

Teasing out the original, interesting and counter-intuitive contribution of a study is one of the most important demands placed on authors by the reviewers. A paper may suffer two weaknesses in this regard. The authors may either fail to state the original contribution of the paper, leaving it implicit in the paper, or they may state such an original contribution but this is not later demonstrated in full in the paper. Clearly, the former weakness is easier to address with an explicit statement of the key contribution of the paper, whereas the latter often requires a complete reassessment of the substance of the paper. The same rule applies also to the methodological aspects of the paper. It is expected that the manuscript submissions have clear statements of method, which is located in the relevant methodological tradition.

Upon receipt of the revised and rewritten papers, I check the manuscripts against the review feedback. In cases where the review feedback is less critical, an editorial decision is made regarding suitability of the paper to the journal based on revisions. However, in cases where the review feedback is highly critical the paper is sent back to’the reviewers for a second review. Authors provide a "point-by-point" response to’reviewers' comments and suggestions. Having the point-by-point responses, makes sure they attend to every issue along with making it much easier for reviewers to see that what they have suggested has been done.

This issue of Equal Opportunities International

In this issue, we have four research papers, one conference report and a book review. In her paper, Alexandra Beauregard examines family-to-work conflict through a survey of a sample of public sector workers in the UK. Her findings suggest that work related influences have a stronger affect than family related influences on family-to-work conflict. This suggests that the organisation of work can be leveraged in order to’decrease family-to-work conflict. Therefore, the organisations can assume greater responsibility in proactively addressing issues of inequity in work and family demands.

Lori K. Long, Robert H. Foley and Deborah Erdos Knapp's paper provides a review and synthesis of 50 influential court cases relating to the Americans with disabilities act (ADA). The paper brings key concerns for organisational efforts to implement the ADA. The paper reviews the field and explores some issues of concern for practitioners and academics focusing on the implementation of the ADA.

Dimitrios Mihail surveyed 173 full-time employees across all the sectors of work in Greece about women in management. The study identifies that gendered stereotypes and bias that individuals hold against women in management varies by the gender of the participants. The paper explains that women and men hold different views on women in management in Greece.

In her paper, Marie Valentova examines female labour inactivity in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. The study reported in the paper reveals that Luxembourg is a’country with a conservative orientation where women, especially those with lower education, who are married, multiple-mothers, older than 35 years, Luxembourg nationals and who are living in households which receive higher social benefits, choose to withdraw from the labour market due to family responsibilities. These findings are useful for developing policy which seeks to increase labour market activity of Luxembourgish women.

The breadth and depth of issues that are addressed in the papers that we have in this issue are impressive. However, there is no reason for complacency and I would very much welcome your comments and responses to the papers published in Equal Opportunities International since early 2006. Through these responses, we will be able to initiate a dialogue and debate across various streams and disciplines of research on equality, diversity and inclusion. Furthermore, your responses will help us improve the quality of publications.

Mustafa Ozbilgin