[AISWorld] The review process

[mmora at securenym.net]

I add other thoughts on this relevant topic:

1. Journal quality is associated with high quality papers but 2 or 3
reviewers reward or punish a paper, so review task is so important
scholarly and intellectual task as the paper writing task self.

2. Blind-mode review process is being currently wrongly used.
Without an anonymous process in both ways every wrong reviewer
would think twice any simple critique not supported with evidences.
Furthermore,  with the publication of the review summary and names of
reviewers in each paper, each reader/researcher would learn additionally
on the reasons of a paper acceptance.

3. Planning, design and conducting a research are highly appreciated
activities, and mid-range and senior academicians knows that research
writing task is another usually harder task than former ones, but
reviewing should be also added and taught in PhD programs.

In summary, I am sure that most of colleagues in this academic list
(young PhDs, mid-range and senior academics) have experienced in the
last years some non ethical reviews (even highly contrasted reviews
for a same paper).

What can do our AIS for it?
Manuel Mora

On Thu, October 17, 2013 11:52 am, Thomas Stafford (tstaffor) wrote:
> One more Editor chiming in on the dialogue, here.
>
>
> I am hearing emblematic terms characterizing what we like and dislike
> about the review process at our journals. "Mentoring," is mentioned as
> the desirable stance of reviewers, and "Slapping Leather" characterizing
> the seeming rejection bias some younger or less experienced reviewers
> might seem to have.
>
> This is all apt; good reviews seek to develop the manuscript in a
> collegial way, if not for the journal at hand, then for some other
> suggested venue as an alternate target. Bad reviews might seem to presume
> guilt until proof of innocence is found, perhaps in some stereotypical
> exhibition of what might be considered rigor.
>
> Rigor is not a bad thing, unless applied indiscriminately. I tend to feel
> that rigorous reviews are highly objective and extremely detailed. This
> does not need to mean picky, as opposed to thorough. We don't need to be
> asking for formative measures or critiquing potential method bias just to
> be stylish; reasoned reviews are objective, they are fair, they are
> polite - even if rejection is the ultimate recommendation.
>
> I, for one, have always favored Carol Saunders' "Diamond Cutter" rubric.
> It's hard to craft a good manuscript, and harder yet to guide it second
> hand as a reviewer. If we think of every seemingly ugly pebble of a
> manuscript as a potentially shiny diamond, given the requisite work, we
> might be inclined to review in ways that diverge from the emerging norm
> of the rejection bias.
>
> **************
> Mobile messaging from
> Thomas F. Stafford, Ph.D.
> Professor of MIS
> Member, Institutional Review Board
> University of Memphis
> Memphis, TN 38152
>
>
> http://www.memphis.edu/mis/about.php
>
>
> On Oct 17, 2013, at 8:34 AM,
> "aisworld-request at lists.aisnet.org<mailto:aisworld-request at lists.aisnet.o
> rg>"
> <aisworld-request at lists.aisnet.org<mailto:aisworld-request at lists.aisnet.o
> rg>> wrote:
>
> [AISWorld] On quality of journals and quality of reviews
> _______________________________________________
> AISWorld mailing list
> AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org