ABSTRACT

Although Collier’s [2002. “The Changing University and the (Legal) Academic Career – Rethinking the Relationship between Women, Men and the Private Life of the Law School.” Legal Studies 22: 1–32] ‘emotional economy’ of academia is well travelled in management and organization studies research, this literature is predominantly informed by Hochschild’s [1983. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press] original formulation of emotional labour as mandated by management for commercial reasons. Equally, there is little analysis of research and even less of receiving peer reviews. Nonetheless, authors can find peer review emotionally challenging, especially when they receive rejections or caustic reviews. Qualitative interviews with management and organization studies academics indicate an understanding of the receipt of peer reviews as properly governed by Bolton’s [2005. Emotion Management in the Workplace. London: Palgrave, 2009. “Getting to the Heart of the Emotional Labour Process: A Reply to Brook.” Work, Employment and Society 23: 549–60; Bolton and Boyd 2003 Bolton, S. C., and C. Boyd. 2003. “Trolley Dolly or Skilled Emotion Manager? Moving on from Hochschild’s Managed Heart.” Work, Employment and Society 17: 289–308.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]. “Trolley Dolly or Skilled Emotion Manager? Moving on from Hochschild’s Managed Heart.” Work, Employment and Society 17: 289–308] prescriptive feeling rules. This suggests such emotion work demands private processing to underpin public displays, even though these are anonymized and written. It may mean authors choose not to appeal to editors about reviewing outcomes except where due process has been breached, as well as involving proxy work by editors to forestall potential hurt to authors.

摘要

尽管Collier的[2002年。“不断变化的大学和（法律）学术职业-重新思考男女之间的关系以及法学院的私生活。” 法律研究22：1–32]学术界的“情绪经济”在管理和组织研究中得到了很好的运用，该文献主要由Hochschild [1983年]提供。被管理的心脏：人类情感的商业化。加州大学伯克利分校和洛杉矶：加州大学出版社]出于商业原因，管理层要求的情感劳动的原始表述。同样，很少进行研究分析，甚至很少收到同行评论。尽管如此，作者仍会发现同行评审在情感上具有挑战性，尤其是当他们收到拒绝或苛刻的评审时。对管理和组织研究学者的定性访谈表明，对接受博尔顿[2005]适当管理的同行评议的理解。工作场所的情绪管理。伦敦：帕尔格雷夫（Palgrave），2009年。“深入情感劳动过程的核心：对布鲁克的回应。” 工作，就业与社会23：549-60；博尔顿和博伊德2003 博尔顿（SC）和C.博伊德（C. Boyd）。2003年。“手推车Dolly或熟练的情绪管理器？从霍奇希尔德的管理之心继续前进。” 工作，就业与社会17：289 – 308。[Crossref]，[Web ofScience®]， [Google Scholar]。“手推车Dolly或熟练的情绪管理器？从霍奇希尔德的管理之心继续前进。” 工作，就业与社会[17：289–308]规范性感觉规则。这表明这种情感工作需要匿名处理来支撑公共展示，即使这些匿名展示和书写也是如此。这可能意味着作者选择不对编辑进行复审，除非违反了正当程序，并且选择涉及编辑的代理工作以防止对作者可能造成的伤害，否则请不要对结果进行上诉。