On the SEAJ Ethos: Mentorship and Peer Review

ABSTRACT

These editorial reflections revisit SEAJ's mentoring ethos, outlining how we embrace it as joint editors. To this end, we mobilize the caretaker analogy, hoping to convey the nurturing position we strive to adopt in our role, which involves valuing each other's intellectual contributions and promoting social and climate justice through the pursuit of transformative quality research and scholarship while proactively responding to issues of inequity and injustice using the levers we have at our disposal. In light of the recent resurfacing of wider concerns over peer review process in scientific publishing, we continue these reflections through considerations of what embracing the SEAJ ethos implies in the peer review process, humbly hoping to recognize and respect the valuable contribution reviewers make to the journal while also developing a community-based perspective on peer review (Souder, 2011).

It is again that time of the year where we welcome you to the last issue of SEAJ. We overview the year at the journal in the first section of the editorial. Then, taking stock of wider critiques about the peer review process that resurfaced recently (Krlev and Spicer 2023; Peterson 2020), we take some time to reflect on the journal’s ethos and its implications for us, in our roles as joint editors accompanying authors and reviewers through the publication process. As per our habit, we end our editorial with exciting information about our special issues in the making and announce changes to the editorial team that derive from our staggered term mode of governance.

1. 2023 in Review

Let’s start the review of the year on a celebratory note with the winners of the 2022 Reg Matthews Memorial Prize. This prize is awarded to the SEAJ paper published in the previous year considered to have made the most significant contribution to the social and environmental accounting literature. Raeni, Thomson, and Frandsen (2022) received this honour this year, with their fascinating piece on the new accounting objects the Indonesian government developed and mobilised to facilitate the traceability and transparency of the funds allocated to greenhouse gases emissions reduction. In addition, Brander’s (2022) plea for more normative policy-focused research was highly commended for the prize. His stimulating call to the SEA research community to embrace normative research questions for the betterment of SEA practices is matched only by his confidence in our community to rise up to the challenge. Coincidentally, both articles are part of last year’s special issue on Accounting and Climate Finance (see Thomson and Charnock 2022).

The first issue of this year’s Volume 43 assembles work reflecting on socially responsible investing (SRI), extinction accounting and the role of the SEA community. Arjaliès et al. (2023) draw on their extensive experience working as the scientific committee of the national French public SRI label to shed light on the impact investment practices of the SRI community. They call for greater involvement of the accounting communities – both practice and research – to contribute their knowledge to the evolution of the field. Zhang and Noronha (2023) broaden our knowledge of mega-global infrastructure projects by documenting the specific extinction risks of the Belt and Road Initiative (Asia), emphasising the importance of dealing with extinction crises spanning national borders. True to the commentaries’ role to raise issues of significance in our field and put them up for scholarly debate, discussions and/or call for actions, the commentary by Correa Ruiz et al. (2023) features the perspectives of four committed SEA academics on the role of our community in a post pandemic world. The viewpoints provided arise from different stages of the academic lifecycle, from an emerging scholar, to established researchers and educators, to the ‘oldest person in the room’ (their label, not ours). Their individual and collective perspectives succeed in stimulating and challenging us to reflect – and act - on our individual and collective roles in tackling the urgent socio-ecological issues of our time.

The second issue of the year is a special issue tackling the complex topic of Accounting in Competing Worlds. The guest editors, Lee Moerman, Dianne McGrath, Daniel Murphy and Sandra van der Laan, envisioned this issue as an opportunity ‘to explor[e] the role of accounting and accountability in social and environmental contested spaces’ in their call for papers. We thank them for all their work in curating an issue that encompasses an editorial, two articles and a commentary. The editorial (Moerman et al. 2023) brilliantly sets the tone of the whole issue by drawing out the nature of pluralist societies in which worlds and values coexist and clash. It then emphasises the importance of unpacking disputes, contestations and challenges to better understand the limiting and enabling role of accounting therein, and its accountability implications. Next, Corazza, Torchia, and Cottafava (2023) reflect on their interventionist research in the highly debated megaproject of the Turin-Lyon high-speed railway. They seek to inform our community of the strategies they adopted in light of the multifaceted nature of the challenges they faced as researchers, working with both the project’s promoters and its stakeholders. They summarise their intervention as being based on three pillars: interparadigmatic research, a critically performative aim, and a commitment to emancipation through a politics of small wins. Murphy (2023) analyses the role of accounting in supporting or hindering the implementation of the sustainability agenda of a Higher Education Institution. Drawing on broader notions of the Sociology of Worth, Murphy (2023) underlines the nature of the contested space - torn between financial constraints and environmental ambitions - and the mobilisation of accounting as a justificatory device under these different orders. Last but not least, Sopt (2023) looks at the U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission established in the wake of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis to explore the political ideological conflict at play – and the portrayal of accounting and the accounting profession therein. Moving beyond the usual conservative and liberal ideological positions, she considers a third category of ideology, the conflicted conservatives, whose adherents identify themselves as conservatives and support liberal public policies (Ellis and Stimson 2012). This ideology seems to offer more opportunities for accounting and the accounting profession to intervene in competing worlds. The different methodological, theoretical and empirical insights of this special issue combine to open a fascinating window into the exploration of pluralist societies.

As for the present issue, its first paper mobilises a survey of North American Chief Financial Officers to explore their attitudes towards carbon tax (Okafor et al. 2023). The study approaches the question from an attitudinal perspective, attempting to explore whether some values and beliefs CFOs identify with align with the support for a carbon tax. The results indeed confirm their hypotheses, revealing CFOs as potential allies in climate change mitigation. The second paper by Cahaya, Nursalim, and Dhirathiti (2023) documents the expectations of workers with respect to labour-related corporate responsibility disclosures, as voiced by labour unions. Set in the context of Indonesia and Thailand, the study reveals the sometimes overlapping and sometimes distinct expectations of workers from each country, both in terms of content and media of disclosures. The commentary by Sobkowiak, Senn and Volmer (2023) reflects on the nature and limitations of the planetary boundaries framework (Rockström et al. 2009) as a springboard to reflect on the accomplishment of accounting research on the matter, and to chart multiple pathways accounting research can take to broaden our understandings of ecological limits – and thereby our ability to act on them. The issue continues with a touching tribute to Thomas (Tom) Schneider, a dear member of the CSEAR (North America) community, who very sadly passed away suddenly earlier this year. The tribute gathers moving recollections and reflections on his personality and his work from a group of co-authors and colleagues (Andreaus et al. 2023).

The volume would not be complete without the interesting book, article and thematic reviews diligently curated by the Reviews team. Each review offers an incredible window into recently published work and is well worth the detour.

2. Reflecting on Mentorship and Respect at the Core of SEAJ Ethos and What it Entails for Peer Review

Our editorial reflections this year focus on a key defining characteristic of the journal: its ethos. SEAJ’s shared values are rooted in the inclusive, friendly and supportive culture that has been the essence of the wider CSEAR community and its associated events and conferences since its inception more than 30 years ago. Reflecting on different aspects of the journal’s ethos has become something of a recurring theme for us, with recent editorials highlighting SEAJ’s commitment to the creation of a new academic literature in the broader field of social, environmental and sustainable accounting, through encouraging greater diversity in the nature and scope of submissions (Rodrigue and Tregidga 2021; Rodrigue and Dey 2022). This year, our reflections originated in part by presentations that we, along with representatives of other journals in our field, were asked to give at a ‘Meet the Editors’ roundtable session at the CSEAR Emerging Scholars Colloquium in August 2023. As part of this session, we discussed key issues facing prospective authors, including how to find the right journal, and how to navigate the peer review process. It was wonderful to engage with motivated and passionate early career researchers about the publishing endeavour and the publishing world. Engagements of this kind often allow panellists themselves to reflexively revisit their own ways of thinking and doing … and it happened for us this time around. Our preparation for the event, the reflections and takes from our esteemed co-panellists and the discussions that followed prompted us to reflect further on how SEAJ’s ethos of supporting and nurturing the academic community (Bebbington and Unerman 2007) can be fostered within the all-important, but perhaps taken-for-granted, ‘backstage’ work of editorial and peer review processes.

An essential starting point for us as editors is recognising and framing our own roles in a way that aligns and resonates with the journal’s supportive ethos. While this may seem obvious and straightforward, it highlights a tension in relation to what is perhaps the dominant metaphor in academic publishing. Editors in this context are typically seen as powerful ‘gatekeepers’, in a peer review system characterised by structural inequities, and implicitly viewed in transactional terms as a form of ‘exchange economy’ (Elden 2008). Rather than guarding the gate, or passively conveying decisions taken by reviewers, we prefer instead to see ourselves as ‘caretakers’- for us a natural extension of the values of the CSEAR community. In our minds, the caretaker metaphor immediately signals a more protective and more nurturing position, and in addition, it enables us to consider our role in terms of taking care. This involves fostering and sustaining relationships which reflect an ethos of care. Appreciating the care involved in academic knowledge production involves recognising inequity and injustice, proactively responding to these issues using the levers we have at our disposal, valuing each other’s intellectual contributions, and promoting social and climate justice through the pursuit of transformative quality research and scholarship.

Far from being an abstract guiding principle, caretaking manifests in the way we perform our regular duties for the journal and in how we seek to embrace our own approach in guiding reviewers and in supporting and mentoring authors. For us, the journal’s ethos means doing more than enforcing rigorous peer review as a system of quality control. We especially aim to work supportively with authors who are new to the field and/or find themselves at the margins of the discipline. This includes, for the papers that fit within the aims and scope of the journal, providing more detailed and constructive feedback on desk-rejected submissions that, unfortunately, do not reach the threshold required to be sent to reviewers. Despite widespread perceptions, editors are usually not (and we certainly are not!) big fans of rejecting papers. We carefully appraise the papers and, whenever we sense potential, we may be open for considering a substantially different manuscript arising from the same idea, despite a previous desk-reject decision (a.k.a. ‘Reject and Resubmit’ decision). In such cases, in-depth comments from us are meant to steer authors on their path to develop a paper that has greater chances to succeed in the review process. Finally, for the papers sent out to review, our caretaking approach implies offering thorough editorial guidance to help navigate the review process in general and the reviewers’ suggestions in particular, while acknowledging the possibility to decline (some) advice from reviewers, as long as authors justify their course of action soundly. Throughout all these endeavours, research quality remains central. We do not choose to favour caretaking and mentoring over academic quality. We choose to advance research quality through a caretaking and mentoring ethos.

We also believe it is important to use our positions to encourage a culture of respect and humility between authors and reviewers. Souder (2011, 56), citing Hames (2007), refer to the reciprocal duties of the stakeholders during the review process: ‘Authors are owed fairness, efficiency, and courtesy; reviewers are owed transparency and gratitude’. As caretakers, we take these obligations seriously. We view editors, reviewers, and authors as members of a trio working together to help the journal – and most importantly, its socio-ecological aspirations – thrive through quality research. We believe this is possible by (among other things) doing our best to offer a positive experience to both authors and reviewers. Before we elaborate further on our views on the matter, let us be clear and emphatic. We are immensely grateful to the scholars who take time out of their busy schedules to review for the journal and we thank them for their engagement. We view their work as invaluable in contributing to the common good. And like our predecessors, we believe in ‘the importance of peer-reviewed social and environmental accountability research in advancing sustainability’ (Bebbington and Unerman 2011, 1).

Yet, concerns about the operation of peer review in the scientific publishing field resurfaced recently, highlighting a tendency for the review process to foster conservatism rather than innovation (Gendron and Rodrigue 2021) and a lack of so-called ‘epistemic respect’ in the process (Krlev and Spicer 2023). From the perspective of anxious early career scholars attempting to navigate their first submission, this is often expressed through the cultural meme known as ‘reviewer 2’: the ultimate academic bogeyman who is hell-bent on rejecting your submission in as rude and smug a manner as possible – whatever journal you submit your work to. Recent evidence suggests that the legend of ‘reviewer 2’ is more myth than reality in academic circles (Peterson 2020) but there are indications that reviewers continue at times to act unreasonably disheartening and ill-mannered in presenting their comments.¹ Hence, in light of these wider concerns about academic publishing, we believe important for SEAJ to aim to proactively encourage constructive engagement between reviewers and authors, ensuring that reviews provide clear, constructive and relevant suggestions for improvement.

In our minds, such ‘clear, constructive, and relevant suggestions for improvements’ require, in the context of SEAJ, keeping in mind the nature of SEAJ as a niche community-based journal as well as its mentoring and innovative ethos. We encourage our reviewers to focus on what matters the most (Moizer 2009) to help the journal fulfil its aims and scope, thereby adapting their reviews to the singularities of SEAJ. For instance, SEAJ welcomes papers that document

practical experiments that may be not suitable to theorisation but which all the same provide insight into the practice of SEA or the art of researching SEA [, p]rovided such work has been conducted and written-up in an academically credible and focused manner. (Bebbington and Unerman 2007, 6)

The traditional expectations of a fully fledged conceptual framework would therefore not apply to such papers sent out for review. Similarly, while open to longer submissions, SEAJ welcomes short and focused pieces,² to which once again traditional review canvas might not apply. In parallel, as SEAJ is dedicated to the creation of a new academic literature, we as editors are open to appropriate editorial risk-taking (Bebbington and Unerman 2007; Gendron and Rodrigue 2021) and wish for the reviewers to do the same, i.e. ‘to take an occasional “leap of faith” with authors, to be open to novel ideas and alternative accounts’ (Jeacle and Carter 2014, 13). A new literature is eventually the result of a joint effort, a process of co-creation that occurs ‘behind the scenes’ but where amazing miracles often happen. Let it be the scene of fruitful debate and conversation, a sign of the ‘epistemic respect’ (Krlev and Spicer 2023) we advocate for. It is such constructive and dialogical vibes that nourish original and novel ideas. Hence, we believe that, in the spirit of engagement, empathy and co-creation, reviewers can act as ‘lifeguards’ (Umphress et al. 2022) that help uncover the innovative dimensions of submitted manuscripts and work with authors to ‘save’ rather than ‘drown’ the papers.

In short and drawing on considerations expressed above, we wish to encourage a community-based perspective on peer review (Souder 2011), one in which authors, reviewers and us, the editors, work alongside, each with well-defined-roles and responsibilities, but all in the caring and kind-hearted spirit of the CSEAR community. For us, peer review alongside the entire editorial process should reflect what is at the core of SEAJ and its community - passion, inspiration, quality contributions and new perspectives.

Building on our prior reflections (Rodrigue and Tregidga 2021; Rodrigue and Dey 2022), in putting this section together, our intentions are once again humble. We write this section out of care for our authors and reviewers, aiming to (re)emphasise what makes SEAJ distinct and appealing. We hope our reflections will contribute to facilitate authors’ and reviewers’ engagement with the journal and will offer some guidance to emerging scholars as they make their first steps on the other side of the publication fence, acting as reviewers themselves – because this too is part of SEAJ’s mentoring ethos.

As always, we are open to feedback and suggestions from our community on the matter.

3. Onto the Future: What is Coming Up for SEAJ?

We now ‘dare’ to look ahead and turn our attention to what is coming up for SEAJ; all in the spirit of engagement, mentorship, and epistemic respect. We start by introducing some of the exciting forthcoming content to be published in SEAJ, followed by news on changes in the SEAJ editorial team.

2024 will bring us a new special issue, Finding our Voices – Exploring Diversity, Inclusion and Accounting by the Marginalised and Managed Diverse, guest edited by Matthew Egan, Nicholas McGuigan, Lisa Powell and Barbara Voss. Against the backdrop of political and societal realm slipping back to populist discourses across many of our societies, the role of accounting, accountants and the accounting profession in giving voice to the marginalised and disempowered (or silencing it?) is a timely and urgent topic to explore. Diversity and inclusion are approached broadly in the special issue, covering genders, ethnicities, sexualities, religions, abilities and cultures that are subject to organisational and professional marginalisation, discrimination and bigotry. We look ahead for the contributions to challenge many of our deep-sited beliefs and assumptions and help us build tolerance and mutual respect.

Next in the pipeline, aiming to be published in 2025, is the special issue guest edited by Oana Apostol, Cătălin Albu, Nadia Albu and Mercy Denedo on Accounting for Anti-corruption in Social and Environmental Accounting Research. Apostol (2022) notes that ambiguous relationship in which accounting and corruption have always lived is poorly explored in the social and environmental accounting literature and invites our community for more research on the implications of accounting for (anti-)corruption on ecological and social vulnerabilities. We hope the call for the special issue to prompt community members located in places affected by corruption to examine such matters of high importance for the health of our societies. The submission deadline at the end of November 2023 is soon approaching and the potential contributors may well take this opportunity to refine their pieces of work. We look forward for exciting submissions!

Finally, we are pleased to announce that Madlen Sobkowiak, Juliette Senn and Hendrik Vollmer have accepted our invitation to work jointly for a new special issue on the topic of planetary boundaries. While the official call for papers will be out later this year, their commentary in this issue (Sobkowiak, Senn and Vollmer, 2023) provides an overview of their hopes for the contributions to diversify our understandings of ecological limits and our ways to account for them. The potential submission deadline will likely aim for the second half of 2024, with publication expected in early 2026. Look out for the call for papers for more details!

We believe that this collection of upcoming special issues supports well our commitment to develop a new literature within SEAJ (see Rodrigue and Dey 2022). Importantly, it also reflects our engagement with SEAJ ethos as framed in this editorial. If you do not take our word for it, then check the great variety of guest editors of a diverse background (broadly defined) and in different career stages – this speaks for itself. Such a great mix is meant to encourage engagement and mutual respect across members of our community. Of course, such team building is always a work-in-progress, can always be developed and improved, and we strive to continue along this path in the future. Once more, we are very grateful to all the guest editors for their involvement with and support of the journal.

A distinctive feature of SEAJ are the article and book reviews as well as commentaries and polemics. We are delighted to note that an increasing number of our community members actively engage with these sections of the journal. We experienced a steady growth of commentaries in particular, indicative of vibrant conversations in the pages of SEAJ. As always, the SEAJ team is happy to be in contact with you on any inquires and encourage the community to support the journal as authors, article or book reviewers, commentators or reviewers.

On the Changes to the SEAJ Executive Editorial Board

This year, SEAJ moved from a two joint editorship to a three joint editorship model, following the upsurge in the volume of submissions experienced in the recent period. Following the call of nominations opened last October, we welcomed Oana Apostol who started her four-year term alongside Michelle Rodrigue and Colin Dey. Oana is a much-appreciated addition to the joint editors’ team. Sharing the workload among us three grant us more time to focus on the journal’s development.

There are several changes coming ahead in the Executive Editorial Board of the journal. Michelle’s term as SEAJ Joint Editor is sadly coming to an end this year but she will move to take over the SEAJ Convenor position. The process for her replacement has begun, with the new Joint Editor to start their term in January 2024.

Following the replacement of Matthew Scobie, the reviews editorial team welcomed Erin Twyford to join Nicolas Garcia-Torea and Mercy Denedo. Together they accomplished incredible work again this year and we thank them for their commitment to this longstanding and distinctive section of the journal. It is now Mercy Denedo’s turn to leave the reviews editorial team at the end of the year after a four-year term, with preparations well on the way to secure her replacement. While Mercy expressed to us her gratitude about the learning opportunities she benefited through the role, we are even more grateful to her. We use this opportunity to show our appreciation to Mercy for all her dedication and accomplishments during her term!

Helen Tregidga also ends her term as Convenor of the journal. We greatly appreciated her diligent convening work and her generous availability to offer guidance and act as a sounding board every time we needed it. Exceptionally during her Convenor term, she navigated not one but two joint editor nominations, having led the development of a third joint editor position last year and now overseeing Michelle’s replacement as we write these lines. It is important for us to note that Helen has also served SEAJ as co-editor of book and article reviews as well as a Joint Editor – in total being engaged in an SEAJ role for 11 consecutive years! We whole-heartedly thank her for all her energy, commitment and contributions to the journal. We are happy that she will continue to support SEAJ as part of the Editorial Board.

Our wonderful Social Media Editor continues her term. Kylie Kingston is serving the journal in her active promotion of SEAJ content and news on multiple social media channels: LinkedIn, X (the platform formerly known as Twitter) and Facebook³. We hope our community has fun engaging with her on these platforms and we count on community members to help increase the visibility of the journal on social media by engaging with Kylie’s work.

In drawing this editorial to close, we now leave you to read the insightful and varied contributions featured in this issue. In the spirit of community engagement, we hope they will spark inspiration for your own work and that you will consider contributing to our community’s journal in multiple ways.

Notes

1 Websites such as ‘Shit My Reviewers Say’ (tumblr.com) are a testimony that the phenomenon is alive still.

2 See the journal’s instructions to authors, under word limit: https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?show=instructions&journalCode=reaj20

3 SEAJ can be found on LinkedIn (www.linkedin.com/company/social-and-environmental-accountability-journal/), X (@Journal_SEAJ) and Facebook (@Journal.SEAJ). While we currently remain present on all three platforms, we are also aware of a recent shift in usage, away from X and towards LinkedIn. We will continue to monitor this situation in partnership with the CSEAR Executive Council.