[AISWorld] Fwd: Re: On quality of journals and quality of reviews !
Ejub Kajan
ejubkajan at sbb.rs
Thu Oct 17 10:03:19 EDT 2013
Wake up people,
------- Forwarded message -------
From: "Ejub Kajan" <ejubkajan at sbb.rs>
To: aisworld at lists.aisnet.org
Cc: ekajan at ieee.org
Subject: Re: [AISWorld] On quality of journals and quality of reviews !
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:27:25 +0200
My dear friends and colleges,
Attached is an article that addressed several important issues on papers
reviews, where the misserable of review process *or not at all) has
occurred . Authors have proved , with a lot of carriage (the paper has
made intentionally), that everything is possible if there no control over
it, that so-called scientific people may reach full professor positions
due that administration.
I would like to pay attention to reference section where Walt Disney actor
has been cited, Laplas has given his oppinion on the Web and many other
stpitides,
Actually, there is no reviews, authors paid for paper appearance,
conditions applied are cited articles in that journal and paid fee.
WHAT ISI (THOMSON REUTERS) yet wait to send this journal into history.
I think that authors of this paper should be reworded by many thanks by
scientific community.
Thanks,
Ejub
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 00:25:57 +0200, John Lamp <john.lamp at deakin.edu.au>
wrote:
>
> When dealing with new reviewers, you could not really do better than to
> direct them to Allen Lee’s note on reviewing a >manuscript for
> publication. It was originally published in the Journal of Operations
> Management, but is online at:
>
> http://www.people.vcu.edu/~aslee/referee.htm
>
>
> Fifteen simple (well maybe) criteria to address to create a decent
> review. I still refresh my mind from it when doing a review.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> John
>
>
> From: aisworld-bounces at lists.aisnet.org
> [mailto:aisworld-bounces at lists.aisnet.org] On Behalf Of William Tastle
> Sent: Thursday, 17 October 2013 12:43 AM
> To: aisworld at lists.aisnet.org
> Subject: Re: [AISWorld] On quality of journals and quality of reviews !
>
>
> I, too, am a former journal editor and the difficulties in securing
> proper reviewers is sometimes a bit of a challenge. >However, I
> consider it a responsibility of scholars to engage in a mentoring
> function with respect to paper reviewing. In >general, the best reviews
> are from the senior researchers and hence, they are thepeople most
> bombarded with review >requests. Those reviews are nurturing and
> guiding as they attempt to raise the quality of content (and writing
> style) such that >the paper crosses the threshold of acceptability. The
> worst reviews, again speaking very generally and without benefit of a
> >scientific effort to confirm my experiential observations, are from the
> younger, or perhaps more insecure, scholars who >seemingly engage in a
> “slap leather” attitude towards the review process. Their reviews are
> more apt (again, a >generalization) to be vicious in content and of
> little use to the paper author.
>
>
> I recall a story from Ben Schneiderman about how his seminal paper on
> structure diagrams was severely trashed by some >reviewers until it was
> finally published, only to become one of the most downloaded papers in
> the journal’s history. I heard a >similar story, again first hand, from
> Lotfi Zadeh on his theory of fuzzy sets. They persevered to success.
> We have a >responsibility to mentor our colleagues, just as we have
> (hopefully) been mentored ourselves.
>
>
> However, this does not excuse a poorly written or researched paper.
> That is sloppy work and papers of that sort should >simply be returned
> to the authors without any review until the basic threshold of
> scientific literacy is reached.
>
>
> Bill Tastle, Professor of IS, Ithaca College
>
>
> From: aisworld-bounces at lists.aisnet.org
> [mailto:aisworld-bounces at lists.aisnet.org] On Behalf Of MurphJen at aol.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 8:42 PM
> To: mmora at securenym.net; aisworld at lists.aisnet.org
> Subject: Re: [AISWorld] On quality of journals and quality of reviews !
>
>
> I'm not sure what the point of the below is but I'll add my perception
> as a journal editor in chief. Quite frankly authors are lucky to get
> >reviews. I have seen a flood of submissions the last 2 years from all
> parts of the world where before I saw mostly US and European
> >submissions. I think this is good but, there are a lot of junior level
> papers and not enough senior level reviewers to go around. The >trend I
> do not like is that of authors feeling it is their right to get their
> reviews quick. I'm not sure if this is an output of the open source
> >journals that have promised fast turnarounds, but to get quality
> reviews takes time as there simply aren't enough quality reviewers who
> >have the time to be almost full time reviewers. My gripe (and I admit
> it is as an EiC) is that it seems everyone wants/has to author >papers
> and few have the desire/time to review. Also, unfortunately, new
> authors don't seem to understand the concept of a thorough >literature
> review and seem to have taken the debate on the ethics of recommending
> papers from the journal being submitted to, or of >previous papers from
> senior reviewers as license to ignore them.
>
> This leads to my major question: Why should a journal spend limited
> reviewing resources on doing thorough reviews of papers that do >not
> meet the basic standard of scholarly research by grounding themselves in
> the literature.
>
>
> I am tired of the excuse that the authors do not have access to the
> articles so they ignore them. I see so much research that authors
> >consider new but is at best a minor extension of something that has
> been published but the authors did not or could not get the article >to
> know it.
>
>
> I think we are at a crossroads of scholarly literature. We argue about
> plagiarism but I think we are seeing a greater issue of authors >not
> looking at the literature so that they can make the claim "there is
> little research" or that "this is new" as a justification for their
> >paper. To give credit we have to recognize the research that has been
> done, to build a body of knowledge we have to build on what >has been
> done, not do it over and over again.
>
>
> If authors want quality reviews they need to show the respect to the
> senior scholars by at least looking at their work and building on it
> >rather than trying to waste their time by making them tell them what
> literature to look at rather than addressing the quality of the >paper.
>
>
> Also, I propose that we establish a new ethic: authors can only submit
> if they serve as reviewers. I am also tired of hearing the cries >of
> needing to get published to get tenure or promotion so they don't have
> time to review. We need all universities to start recognizing >the
> intellectual contribution of reviewing as being on equal or near equal
> par with authoring. Do this and we will all have quality reviews.
>
>
> sorry to rant but you can see this has touched a nerve that has been
> throbbing for a while.
>
>
> Murray E. Jennex, Professor of MIS, San Diego State University
>
>
> In a message dated 10/15/2013 5:05:48 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> mmora at securenym.net writes:
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>> In past weeks, a strong and relevant debate on the academic influence
>> of ISI listed journals was discussed in this forum. Well, on same ideas
>> I wonder whether there are studies on the quality of the reviewers (e.g.
>> level of seniority, level of expertise in the topic, level of expertise
>> on research methods, and in particular on the role played as peers
>> seeking to improve the advance of science and suggesting clear insights
>> rather some simple elaborations of flaws without any rational
>> justification).
>> In summary, are we living in a spiral of hard reviewers and bad
>> researchers?
>> or rather the opposite one is the reality? I am sure that Senior
>> researchers
>> will have reviewed rare reviews from people with less expertise and
>> seniority
>> level, so comments on it are welcome ! Of course, this non ethical
>> practice
>> should be eliminated. As a funny real history, a Mexican top researcher
>> in Education received a strong critique on the null value of paper that
>> he wrote, and the suggestion was to use some papers writen by him in the
>> past (of course, the reviewers did know it). I know of other cases
>> similar
>> cases. Well, sciences is about truthness but wrong reviews maybe are
>> now a
>> real headache ! Cheers !
>> Manuel Mora
>> ACM Senior Member
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AISWorld mailing list
>> AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org
>
>> Important Notice: The contents of this email are intended solely for
>> the named addressee and are confidential; any unauthorised use,
>> reproduction or storage >of the contents is expressly prohibited. If
>> you have received this email in error, please delete it and any
>> attachments immediately and advise the sender by >return email or
>> telephone.
>
> Deakin University does not warrant that this email and any attachments
> are error or virus free.
--
Ejub Kajan
State University of Novi Pazar
Editor of Electronic Business Interoperability: Concepts, Opportunities
and Challenges
Editor of Handbook of Research on E-Business Standards and Protocols
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
--
Ejub Kajan
State University of Novi Pazar
Editor of Electronic Business Interoperability: Concepts, Opportunities
and Challenges
Editor of Handbook of Research on E-Business Standards and Protocols
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aisnet.org/pipermail/aisworld_lists.aisnet.org/attachments/20131017/e094785f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Lazni rad sa FONA ref.Siljka meraklija.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 672476 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aisnet.org/pipermail/aisworld_lists.aisnet.org/attachments/20131017/e094785f/attachment.pdf>
More information about the AISWorld
mailing list