[AISWorld] On review cycles in our discipline
Durcikova, Alexandra
alex at ou.edu
Mon Apr 6 17:26:02 EDT 2015
We can add this to the second call for papers - OK? Thanks for bringing it up!
Alex
-----Original Message-----
From: AISWorld [mailto:aisworld-bounces at lists.aisnet.org] On Behalf Of MurphJen at aol.com
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 3:14 PM
To: mmora at securenym.net; aisworld at lists.aisnet.org
Subject: Re: [AISWorld] On review cycles in our discipline
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
_______________________________________________
AISWorld mailing list
AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org
More information about the AISWorld
mailing list