[AISWorld] On review cycles in our discipline

Mon Apr 6 14:28:32 EDT 2015

Colleagues,
Several issues have been commented:

- lack of acknowledgement in tenure-track careers by reviewing papers
- lack of time for conducting 5-10 reviews by year
- lack of good reviewers and willing for doing it in reasonable time frames

and some facts:

- a large cycle review period in our discipline compared with other sciences
- an ad-hoc review process with a large variability on styles and tones
- a misused or abused blind review mode

then, some feasible (?) solutions for improving it have been also posited:

- to eliminate the blind review mode
- to foster the acknowledgement of the review process
- to posit some standards review forms (accredited from AIS) with some
exemplary cases

We have and live in this problem (junior and mid career Faculty) but
solution "is in hands" of senior Faculty,
Thanks,
Prof. Mora
Autonomous University of Aguascalientes
Mexico

On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Juhani Iivari <Juhani.Iivari at oulu.fi> wrote:

    Hi All,

    Yes, I largely agree with the two comments below. Some time ago I
wrote my thoughts about peer reviews, based on my experiences as an
author, reviewer and editor. Perhaps not surprisingly, I have not
attempted to get it published anywhere, but you can access it form
ResearchGate
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263766605_How_to_improve_the_quality_of_peer_reviews__Three_suggestions_for_system-level_change),
if you are interested in.

    With best regards,

    Juhani Iivari
    Professor emeritus
    University of Oulu

    On 05 Apr 2015, at 16:50, Arto Lanamäki <Arto.Lanamaki at oulu.fi> wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > I think that cycle time reduction is one of many aspects when
considering peer review process improvement. But it is just one
aspect, and probably not even the most important aspect. I would
emphasize the developmental aspect of peer reviewing, in line of a
recent AMR editorial: http://amr.aom.org/content/40/1/1.extract
    >
    > With kind regards,
    > Arto Lanamäki
    > University of Oulu
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: AISWorld
[/mail/src/compose.phpaisworld-bounces at lists.aisnet.org] On Behalf
Of Paul Ralph
    > Sent: 2. huhtikuuta 2015 2:41
    > To: aisworld at lists.aisnet.org
    > Subject: [AISWorld] Practical suggestions for improving journal
cycle times
    >
    > Dear all,
    >
    > Here are some ways to reduce review cycle times:
    >
    > 1) Give reviewers only two options: reject or accept with minor
revisions.
    > 2) Limit revisions to one cycle, i.e., manuscript, revision one,
galle proofs, published. No revisions two and three.
    > 3) Direct reviewers specifically to evaluate methodology and rigour,
rather than respond to tone (see
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html).
    > 4) For a 'minor revision' decision, insist on list of specific
action items rather than a vague discussion.
    > 5) Limit review periods to one month.
    > 6) Officially suspend dysfunctional reviewers from authorship, i.e.,
if someone, fails to complete a review or does a terrible job, they
lose the right to submit papers to that outlet for one year. Of
course, this has to come with a limit, e.g., the right to refuse
more than two reviews per year. It also has to be transparent;
silently blacklisting people contributes to nepotism (see
recommendation 12).
    > 7) Flatten the editorial hierarchy - one paper doesn't need both an
SE and an AE. One editor per paper is enough.
    > 8) Limit editors to one month of decision time. Dismiss editors who
can't make these deadlines and suspend their authorship privileges
(see recommendation 6).
    > 9) Abandon blind review. Blind review is supposed to free junior
reviewers to reject the papers of their more powerful peers without
repercussion.
    > This obviously isn't working. It's protecting bad reviewers from
well-deserved backlash. Knowing your name is on a review encourages
you to stick to actionable suggestions rather than name calling and
quibbling about tone.
    > 10) Stop peer-reviewing position papers. Peer review is a system for
checking the methodological rigour of empirical research, not for
analyzing essays. Treating a position paper as a "peer reviewed
contribution" is absurd. Journals are for empirical science. If you
want to share an opinion, start a blog.
    > 11) Develop a clear set of desk-reject rules that allows more desk
rejects.
    > Publish them, let them be challenged and continually evolve them. If
these policies are regularly updated, they'll save everyone time and
drive up research standards. For example, we might reject any
interview-only study based on less than 10 hours of interviews.
    > 12) Make no exceptions. Exceptions will inevitably apply more often
to more powerful academics, increasing nepotism.
    >
    > None of these suggestions are particularly novel or inventive.
Common-sense improvements like these are only resisted because of
the incorrect belief that anything that simplifies review will
reduce quality. A simpler, more direct review process will encourage
everyone to focus on key issues – methodology and results rather
than framing, positioning and tone – increasing quality.
    >
    > P.S. Long review cycles are not caused by poor reviewer incentives.
This is a red herring, designed to divert criticism of the
extraordinarily inefficient way we review papers, and the
editors-in-chief who have the authority to improve it but choose not
to.
    >
    > —
    > Dr. Paul Ralph
    > Lecturer in Computer Science, University of Auckland
http://paulralph.name
_______________________________________________
    > AISWorld mailing list
    > AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org
    > _______________________________________________
    > AISWorld mailing list
    > AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org

    _______________________________________________
    AISWorld mailing list
    AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Mora, EngD.
Full Professor and Researcher Level C
ACM Senior Member / SNI Level I
Department of Information Systems
Autonomous University of Aguascalientes
Ave. Universidad 940
Aguascalientes, AGS
Mexico, 20131
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachments:
untitled-[1] 	5.4 k  	[ text/plain ] 		 Download  |  View
As Attachment

Bypass Trash

Move to:
[Previous | Next]    [Delete & Prev | Delete & Next]    [Message List]