The Human Work of Academic Publishing; In Memoriam Dan Brass
Tapping the potential of AI technologies while staying committed to reviewing, writing, and editing with care
Reviewing for ASQ: To AI or Not to AI?
My middle-school son tells his friends that I hate AI. He has overheard me on Zoom discussing AI with coauthors as we write about its impact on the workplace. He is not completely wrong, but my opposition is more nuanced: I am a Luddite in the original sense of the term.* I’m skeptical of technologies that put people out of work in order to produce things quicker, cheaper, and crappier. Therefore, I’m concerned about the potential effects of generative AI on our profession. And I have yet to find a good use for it in my daily life.
I am aware, of course, that many folks in our field are more excited about these potentially effort-saving technologies than I am. This was brought home to me when a colleague proclaimed publicly that generative AI “makes cognition free!” However, we need to make sure that in taking advantage of this potential we don’t undermine our ability to develop theoretical insights through original research and peer review. This nuance came up recently when the authors of a manuscript I had handled as an Associate Editor complained about the review process.
The reviewers had thoughtfully engaged with the manuscript, and I agreed with many of their concerns and ideas for improvement. However, the authors believed that one reviewer had used generative AI: when they tried to download and read the articles recommended by the reviewer, they could not locate several of them. It turned out that the reviewer had not used AI to write the review but did use an AI-supported Microsoft Word plug-in to manage their own document library. This tool hallucinated the references it inserted for several of the articles suggested in the review. The reviewer had not noticed the problem upon originally submitting the review, and they were embarrassed and apologetic when it was brought to their attention.
This example struck me for several reasons. One, the reviewer had not used a large language model to assist with developing or writing what I felt was a nuanced and generative opinion of the paper. But, two, as soon as the authors got a whiff of generative AI, they discounted the entire review process. And three, ASQ’s policies are rightly concerned with making sure that we are accountable for not just the veracity of our language but also the quality of the constructive feedback we provide each other.
As scholars, it’s not that difficult to avoid tricky AI issues around hallucinations. It does, however, require an awareness of what our tools are doing and a commitment to taking the time to responsibly manage our own work. As Jerry Davis and I argue in our forthcoming essay, generative AI is not a good alternative to deep reading, careful crafting of our writing, and true engagement with our colleagues (through activities such as thoughtful reviewing). If you are using generative AI to support your academic work, which includes reviewing for this journal, you should be aware that it cannot substitute for rigorous scrutiny, and you should oversee both the process and the output.
So, if you are an AI enthusiast, I’m not on my way over to demolish your computer! But when reviewing, please follow ASQ and Sage’s artificial intelligence policy. It breaches our confidentiality rules to upload a submitted manuscript to an AI tool that will put the paper in the public domain and use it for training purposes (as many versions of GAI will do). And, as a reviewer, you are responsible for the “content, accuracy and constructive feedback within the review.”
Beth Bechky (Associate Editor, ASQ)
* For an excellent depiction of this oft misunderstood movement, see Brian Merchant’s recent book, Blood in the Machine (2023).
✍️ Ashleigh´s Writing Corner ✍️
What Human Editors Do (and Why You Should Care)
In an increasingly transactional context of purchased publication and new digital technologies that promise everything from warped metrics to doing the writing and research itself, a basic question returns for editors—and perhaps scholars as well: What does it mean to foster excellent scholarship?
As a developmental and copy editor, I am frequently thinking about and quietly celebrating how great thinking and writing emerge. Especially academic writing is often framed as a technical task that ostensibly involves learning a stock set of skills to then be applied to one’s communication. Learn x skill, slap it on text y.
But many editors know two things: All writing is deeply creative, and language—and by extension writing—is not a mere collection of technical features. It is a beautiful, living, changing, somewhat random, often weird social organism that reflects our humanity. Editors and grammarians may try to contain it, but in its relentless evolution language always wins.
This restless wandering of human language means that learning to write well is less like learning to ride a bike and more like hiking a new mountain at dawn, where you have no choice but to adjust to the changing light and feel your way around the boulders and chasms. It’s the difference between repeating the same action and exploring, between imitating and understanding.
In 2007, former ASQ managing editor Linda M. Johanson wrote an essay called “Sitting in Your Reader’s Chair: Attending to Your Academic Sensemakers,” which has become a classic, invaluable guide that continues to light the way for many academic writers. The same year, Apple released the first iPhone. What does it mean to sit in your reader’s chair in the information age—and now—the age of AI writing and editing tools? Why is storytelling still such a powerful tool for drawing in readers, and how might writers use it in organization studies scholarship? What can be learned from some of the copy and developmental editing challenges encountered in ASQ articles?
Careful readers of ASQ may have also noted that some of the journal’s style conventions have changed over the years. We now allow sentences to begin with “however,” for example, we encourage judicious use of the first person, and we shamelessly split infinitives. Why is that, and how do editors decide these things? Why does the APA currently recommend the use of “woman” and “man” rather than “male” and “female,” and must this always be the case? What (really) is the passive voice and when should you use it? Why do certain words and meanings fall out of use (or insist on hanging around, like “whom”), and how do we know when they’re obsolete? Are style and content really separate things?
Sometimes the answers to these questions are straightforward, but often they’re not. And that starts to get at what human editors do. Like good writers, skilled editors don’t primarily apply or imitate, nor do we hate ambiguity. Many of us revel in nuance, making choices based on our understanding of how to make writing better. These choices require grasping a bit of grammar, diction, and the minute details of syntax. Over time, this knowledge helps us to perceive the rhetorical choices we create and encounter every day.
Our communication choices also invite us to share knowledge. So, in future newsletters, I’ll explore questions like those outlined above and many others, from my perspective and from those of other editors and writers. Because when writers know how and why they use language, it brings enormous rhetorical and creative power. In the face of so much technological and other change, I think we could all use more of that.
Ashleigh Imus (Associate Managing Editor, ASQ)
The Simple(r) Life: ASQ Switching to APA Citation and Reference Style
After decades of using an in-house style for the presentation of citations and reference lists, ASQ is making the switch to APA style. Why? To save time and effort for our authors and staff editors. While we have loved the simplicity and elegance of the ASQ style, it is unique and therefore requires extra time to implement. The switch to APA will allow our authors to use reference management software such as Mendeley or Zotero when preparing a submission. The ASQ style guide (available from the Resource Center on our home page) and submission guidelines now reflect this update, and you’ll see the change in our published articles starting with those slated for our September 2025 issue.
In Memoriam - Dan Brass (1947-2025)
by Giuseppe (Joe) Labianca
Dan Brass was the J. Henning Hilliard Professor of Innovation Management at the University of Kentucky, where he founded and co-directed the LINKS Center for Social Network Analysis. He was universally recognized as one of the pioneers of network research in the field of organizations and management and was the recipient of the Social Network Society's inaugural Distinguished Scholar Award. His research inspired numerous vibrant streams of research, having a profound impact on the study of power and politics, conflict, unethical behavior, gender and networks, and social identity in organizations.
He served as an Associate Editor for 12 years, from 1995 to 2007, at Administrative Science Quarterly, guiding many influential papers through to publication. Authors remember him as a kind, thoughtful, and collaborative editor who improved their manuscripts. To facilitate the growth of the social network research community, he co-founded and ran the Introduction to Networks Professional Development Workshop (PDW) at the Academy of Management conference with his good friend, David Krackhardt, for many years; the popular PDW continues to take place every year nearly four decades after its founding.
In his free time, Dan enjoyed painting landscapes and gardening. He was also an accomplished topiarist, whose work appeared in Topiary Today as well as on the cover of Administrative Science Quarterly. Dan was an extraordinary colleague, mentor, friend, and husband who never had an unkind word to say about anyone. He is survived by his wife, Karen Lobeck Brass.
To honor Dan’s legacy, we contacted colleagues who served alongside him at Administrative Science Quarterly. They shared their reflections on Dan, highlighting his dedication, influence, and the profound impact he had on the journal and its community.
Steve Barley: Dan was strongly committed to ASQ, our authors, and our reviewers. Dan handled meso-level papers, a hard niche to fill. He was one of the first scholars in organization studies to focus on how social networks shape and are shaped by individual and group-level dynamics. As an editor, Dan strove for strong empirical warrants while writing reviews in a style that respected authors’ dignity. We shall miss Dan’s intelligence, his dry sense of humor, and his willingness to go above and beyond for the benefit of ASQ’s community.
Don Palmer: I was saddened to learn of Dan’s passing. Dan and I served as fellow editors of ASQ. Dan’s “presentation of self” provided no clue of his formidable contributions as a scholar to the field and as an editor of the journal. He was soft-spoken, humble, and open to others’ ideas, but by no means lacking self-confidence and intellectual conviction. I looked up to him, aspired to be more like him, and regret never having told him so.
Christine Oliver: I was so saddened to hear about the passing of Dan Brass. I was fortunate enough to meet Dan while he and I both worked for ASQ. During this time, I was given the privilege to witness his tremendous intelligence and capacity for academic writing and creativity. His kindness and professionalism in working with colleagues, staff, and the broader academic community were truly inspiring.
Over his career, Dan published five influential papers in ASQ. Below, we list these works along with the covers of the issues in which they appeared.
Oldham, G. R., & Brass, D. J. (1979). Employee reactions to an open-plan office: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 267-284.
Brass, D. J. (1981). Structural relationships, job characteristics, and worker satisfaction and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 331-348.
Brass, D. J. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 518-539.
Burkhardt, M. E., & Brass, D. J. (1990). Changing patterns or patterns of change: The effects of a change in technology on social network structure and power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 104-127.
Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (2001). The social networks of high and low self-monitors: Implications for workplace performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(1), 121-146.
✉️ Write to us ✉️
ASQ recently published an editorial on “Resisting the Algorithmic Management of Science: Craft and Community After Generative AI.” We are trying to understand the impact of generative AI on social science and academic publishing and are attentive to some of its potential downsides. As this is a conversation that touches us all, we want to hear from you. What can we do as a community to preserve what is essential to our scholarship in the age of AI? Post a comment to this newsletter and let us know your thoughts.