[AISWorld] On review cycles in our discipline

MurphJen at aol.com MurphJen at aol.com
Mon Apr 6 16:13:52 EDT 2015


I think you missed one issue and an opportunity
 
the issue is we also have a very heavy conference reviewing load
 
the opportunity is that given that many papers progress from conference  
paper to journal article we take credit for the conference reviews for all  
conference papers (not just fast tracked special issues) and do  
accelerated/reduced reviews on these papers, of course the author will have to  track the 
reviews (and we can even take credit for rejected conference papers)  and 
we have to get over our fear of self plagiarism but it could be done.
 
....murray jennex
 
 
In a message dated 4/6/2015 12:13:59 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
mmora at securenym.net writes:

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_quali
ty_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]



_______________________________________________
AISWorld  mailing  list
AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org



More information about the AISWorld mailing list