[AISWorld] On review cycles in our discipline

[Manuel Mora]

To link best papers from confs to journals certaintly is part of this mess.

Who are lately the system's owners with the power to alleviate this mess
(again when IS discipline is compared with Chemistry, Biology, and Medicine
among other ones) ?

If for instance, reviews cycles over 6 months were considered as a low
overall quality process (by time dimension causing delays in publishing of
topics), then, top journals and followers journals would change themselves.

Just remind on the drastic time-to-market cycle reducction in complex
manufacturing car or electronic industries from 5 to 2 years.
On Apr 6, 2015 3:14 PM, <MurphJen at aol.com> wrote:

> 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