“Navigating the Landscape” of Overused ChatGPT Buzzwords
Everyone seems to be “thrilled” these days. Many people write that “X plays a pivotal role in enhancing Y, promoting Z” or that we should “navigate the landscape of” something; that something “will not only do A, but also B”; or that research findings “underscore” or “highlight” something. I now read “foster”, “navigate,” and “leverage” in many documents. And a lot of things seem to be a “testament” to something. People ask us to “join them as they explore” something when they want to “share a milestone” with us or highlight their “New Paper Alert!” with lots of emoticons. They demonstrate that “by embracing A, they are doing B” and they share a lot of “significant insights” after they “dive deep” into something. All of these words, phrases, and sentence structures make sense, but I don’t think it makes sense that we all use the same writing style. Many of us have IKEA furniture in our homes – and try to make sure that other people do not immediately know that it is IKEA. Maybe the same should apply to ChatGPT. Shortly after this tool was released, I fell into some of these traps myself. However, ChatGPT has been around for more than two years now. We should have learned how to use it by now, shouldn’t we?
Taking Academic Ownership of the Supply Chain Emissions Discourse
I am very happy to announce that I have co-authored a new article, Taking Academic Ownership of the Supply Chain Emissions Discourse, with Felix Creutzig. In this editorial, published in the Journal of Supply Chain Management, we emphasize the need for SCM researchers to actively engage with the issue of supply chain emissions, which we define as “the total greenhouse gas emissions generated by the entire network of interconnected and interdependent actors involved in all value-related activities—from upstream to downstream” (p. 3). Our article presents a framework of corporate interventions – categorized as collaborative or authoritative and targeting either behavioral or operational changes – to reduce supply chain emissions and outlines research opportunities using propositional, processual, perspectival, and provocative theorizing. We hope that this work will inspire both academic and practical advancements, particularly by enabling SCM researchers to make meaningful theoretical contributions and assisting SCM practitioners in advancing global efforts to address the climate crisis.
Wieland, A. & Creutzig, F. (2025). Taking Academic Ownership of the Supply Chain Emissions Discourse. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 61(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12338
When Qualitative Researchers Meet “Confidently Wrong” Peer Reviewers
Are you aware of the hidden frustrations many qualitative researchers encounter during peer review? A recent article titled “Being Really Confidently Wrong”: Qualitative Researchers’ Experiences of Methodologically Incongruent Peer Review Feedback by Clarke and her coauthors sheds light on how entrenched quantitative mindsets can hamper the publication of robust qualitative studies. Through a survey of 163 qualitative researchers, the authors reveal how reviewers and editors often apply quantitative standards – like sample size “power,” coding reliability statistics, or forced separation of results from discussion – to approaches that require entirely different benchmarks of rigor. Such mismatched expectations generate stress, hinder methodological integrity, and leave early career researchers especially vulnerable. The authors also provide practical strategies for dealing with these issues – ranging from politely rebutting reviewer demands to raising editorial awareness. Ultimately, they urge reviewers and journals to respect the diversity of qualitative approaches and to support, rather than stifle, these important contributions.
Clarke, V., Braun, V., Adams, J., Callaghan, J.E.M., LaMarre, A., & Semlyen, J. (2024). “Being Really Confidently Wrong”: Qualitative Researchers’ Experiences of Methodologically Incongruent Peer Review Feedback. Qualitative Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000322
