The DOI matches its Crossref record; 94 of the 94 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 91 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Reflecting on 40 Years of New Technology, Work and Employment: Insights From the Current Editors on the Past and Prospects for the Future
Open accessAbstract
The year 2026 marks forty years since New Technology, Work and Employment was first published. In this article, we reflect on the history and success of ‘New Technology, Work and Employment’ as we celebrate the journal's 40th year. We outline the origins and developments of the journal, with the key themes and debates that have been published since the journal was launched in 1986. We clarify the aims and scope of the journal, and offer some guidance for future submissions. We provide insights into the current focus of the journal, and reflect on the challenges posed by contributions that always seek to focus on the latest technological wave. We end with offering some new avenues for the journal's future.
Overview
CoChat Summary
TL;DR
Written by NTWE's current editors to mark the journal's 40th year, this reflective editorial traces the journal's history, themes and editorial policies and sets out future directions. It argues for continued rejection of technological determinism and warns against submissions that chase only the latest technological "wave."
Key findings
- NTWE launched in 1986 as the "sister" journal of the Industrial Relations Journal; it has published over 675 articles, with its 600th paper and 100th issue both appearing in 2024.
- Submissions have grown sharply: 87 in 2015, 231 in 2020, 542 in 2025, and the journal is "on track to receive in excess of 1000 manuscripts in 2026." It desk rejects approximately 80% of all submissions.
- Citation and view data show topic concentration: seven of the 10 most cited articles (1986–2025) and six of the 10 most-viewed papers relate to homeworking/teleworking. The most cited article is Felstead and Henseke (2017) with 1529 citations and 148,323 full-text views; the most cited of the last five years is van der Lippe and Lippényi (2020) with 551 citations.
- The editors state that gig economy and working-from-home/telework topics are "now somewhat saturated," with an "extremely high" threshold for publication, and predict AI submissions will follow a similar path.
Methods
- Reflective editorial/commentary by the current editorial team, drawing on the journal's publication history, prior editorials, and the editors' own experience of running the journal.
- Quantitative indicators drawn from Google Scholar (most-cited articles, 1986–2025 and 2020–2025, as of 30 September 2025 and June 2025 respectively) and Wiley (most full-text views).
- No datasets were generated or analysed; the paper states "Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study."
Limitations
- Stated: the authors note that "the vagaries of academic life in business schools in 2026 means we have not been able to undertake a detailed and full review of the journal's contents," offering only "a small number of comments."
- Stated: space did not permit a full discussion of the growing use of AI and its wider implications for the world of work, so remarks are limited to AI use in writing and reviewing for NTWE.
- Evident from the text: the citation and view analyses are descriptive snapshots from Google Scholar and Wiley with no stated methodology for selection or normalisation, and the thematic claims about saturation rest on editorial judgement rather than systematic content analysis.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 Valid · 7 Not valid · 53 Not checked · 52 Own results and interpretations
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These data highlight the 10 most cited articles published in the last 5 years (as of June 2025).”
§ Reflecting on 40 Years of New Technology, Work and Employment: Insights From the Current Editors on the Past and Prospects for the Future > 5 | Past and Present Themes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A similar trend can be observed through an examination of the articles with the most full-text views.”
§ Reflecting on 40 Years of New Technology, Work and Employment: Insights From the Current Editors on the Past and Prospects for the Future > 5 | Past and Present Themes
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reflecting changes in the economic context, the locus of research began to move away from the automation of manufacturing plants toward the growing importance of ICT in shaping the organisation of work, from the emergence of call centres to early debates on teleworking.”
§ Reflecting on 40 Years of New Technology, Work and Employment: Insights From the Current Editors on the Past and Prospects for the Future > 5 | Past and Present Themes
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the majority of the piece's citations followed the outbreak of the pandemic.”
§ Reflecting on 40 Years of New Technology, Work and Employment: Insights From the Current Editors on the Past and Prospects for the Future > 5 | Past and Present Themes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Felstead and Henseke 2017 source
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“papers adopting a critical approach to the development and implementation of AI, and its implications for work and employment that build on existing work published in NTWE (e.g., Spencer 2018; Upchurch 2018; Lloyd and Payne 2019;Howcroft and Taylor 2023) are not yet commonplace.”
§ Reflecting on 40 Years of New Technology, Work and Employment: Insights From the Current Editors on the Past and Prospects for the Future > 5 | Past and Present Themes
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
25 more claims
Create a free account to see all 112 claims and to verify the 71 references still open.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 40
- Probably not a substantial claim. 70
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Reflecting on 40 Years of New Technology, Work and Employment: Insights From the Current Editors on the Past and Prospects for the Future > 7 | Conclusions
“| 9 | Algorithmic management in food-delivery | Hui Huang | 119 | 2023 |”
§ Reflecting on 40 Years of New Technology, Work and Employment: Insights From the Current Editors on the Past and Prospects for the Future > 7 | Conclusions
“| 6 | Algorithmic management in food delivery | Hui Huang | 19,183 | 2022 |”
Citations
Cites
Felstead, A., & Henseke, G. (2017) · New Technology, Work and Employment · doi:10.1111/ntwe.12097 · Cited by 909
Teleworking: benefits and pitfalls as perceived by professionals and managers
Baruch, Y. (2000) · New Technology, Work and Employment · doi:10.1111/1468-005x.00063 · Cited by 579
Flexibility in the gig economy: managing time on three online piecework platforms
Lehdonvirta, V. (2018) · New Technology, Work and Employment · doi:10.1111/ntwe.12102 · Cited by 550
Entrapped by the ‘electronic panopticon’? Worker resistance in the call centre
Bain, P., & Taylor, P. (2000) · New Technology, Work and Employment · doi:10.1111/1468-005x.00061 · Cited by 546
Wood, A. J., Lehdonvirta, V., & Graham, M. (2018) · New Technology, Work and Employment · doi:10.1111/ntwe.12112 · Cited by 402
Three generations of Telework: New ICT s and the (R)evolution from Home Office to Virtual Office
Messenger, J. C., & Gschwind, L. (2016) · New Technology, Work and Employment · doi:10.1111/ntwe.12073 · Cited by 376
Co‐workers working from home and individual and team performance
van der Lippe, T., & Lippényi, Z. (2020) · New Technology, Work and Employment · doi:10.1111/ntwe.12153 · Cited by 291
New Technology, Work and Employment in the era of COVID‐19: reflecting on legacies of research
Hodder, A. (2020) · New Technology, Work and Employment · doi:10.1111/ntwe.12173 · Cited by 233
Self-citationControlling space, controlling labour? Contested space in food delivery gig work
Heiland, H. (2021) · New Technology, Work and Employment · doi:10.1111/ntwe.12183 · Cited by 200
Fear and hope in an age of mass automation: debating the future of work
Spencer, D. A. (2018) · New Technology, Work and Employment · doi:10.1111/ntwe.12105 · Cited by 192
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Chakrabortty A., 2013, The Woman Who Nearly Died Making Your Ipad, The Guardian
- Edgell S., 2019, The Sociology of Work: Continuity and Change in Paid and Unpaid Work
- 10.1111/ntwe.12205 · DOI · Paper page
- MacKenzie D., 1985, The Social Shaping of Technology
Cited by
Still being checked.
Metadata
- Authors
- Hodder, A., Valizade, D., Hardy, K., MacKenzie, R., & Smith, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Birmingham (GB)
- University of Leeds (GB)
- Karlstad University (SE)
- University of Sheffield (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Hodder, Andy
- Venue
- New Technology, Work and Employment
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2026-11
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 307-318
- ISSN
- 0268-1072 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-005X
- OpenAlex
- W7223719164
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 94
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor, 1 d)
- doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm)
- Locations
- New Technology Work and Employment (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Industrial relations › Employment, Labor, and Gender Studies
- Keywords
- journal history, technological change, work and employment, future of work, journal aims and scope, technological waves
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-14, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-14 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
