[AISWorld] Sound conference desk rejection policy

[Manuel Mora]

I see more benefits than damages with cross-reviews from authors and in
non-blind mode. Concentrated expertise from authors in the same track is
better than seniority far away from topics. In any track there are a
combination from senior, middle range and young or PhD students, and cross
reviewers can be balanced. Finally, a real Assoc. Editor can really to
classify a sure rejection from the abstract. In addition, it has critiqued
than forms than content and truthness are wrongly privileged in IT
research, so we should be foster relevant and provable  findings rather
papers with a 600-toefl alike style on topics outside of the real relevant
topics. For instance, none top journal neither top conference has a track
on Data Centers. It is a real shame for our discipline.
On Feb 26, 2017 1:36 PM, "Cecil Eng Huang Chua" <aeh.chua at auckland.ac.nz>
wrote:

> With regard to the use of authors as reviewers.
>
>
> In my original post I highlighted one problem with this is that authors
> (especially of desk rejected papers) may not be competent to provide a good
> review.
>
>
> Also, authors of papers can refuse to review.  As one of the people who
> privately mailed me noted, it sometimes seems like 20% of us are doing 80%
> of the work.
>
>
> I do agree that having authors who submit function as reviewers can
> partially alleviate the scarcity of reviewer problem.
>
>
> Academy of Managament/OCIS gets around this by having an elite reviewer
> and two ordinary reviewers, the elite reviewer being someone with some
> standing in the field.  AOM calls the elite reviewer an AE, but this person
> doesn't do the traditional AE job of finding reviewers- the track chairs do
> this.
>
>
> Cecil Chua
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Manuel Mora <dr.manuel.mora.uaa at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, February 27, 2017 8:29 AM
> *To:* Cecil Eng Huang Chua
> *Cc:* aisworld at lists.aisnet.org
> *Subject:* Re: [AISWorld] Sound conference desk rejection policy
>
>
> Dear colleague Cecil Huang,
> This is a great topic. My two cents contribution: 1) IT area has exploded
> in topics and subtopics and there is a scarcity of reviewers; 2) asking to
> authors from the same track for being reviewers plus final and fair
> decision from track chair can help to cope with scarcity problem; and 3)
> desk rejection is still valid for really low-quality papers that track
> chair can identify and avoid wasted time from reviewers. Thanks, Manuel Mora
> On Feb 26, 2017 1:05 PM, "Cecil Eng Huang Chua" <aeh.chua at auckland.ac.nz>
> wrote:
>
>> What's interesting about this post is that I have received several
>> personal emails rather than posts to ISWorld.  As some people have
>> explicitly asked me not to repost their mails, I won't do so.
>>
>>
>> The correspondence I have received has been of the following forms:
>>
>>
>> (1) Interesting question. Complex issue.
>>
>> (2)​ War stories of how some editor had to ask many people before someone
>> would finally review for them.
>>
>> (3) Comments about how some people write a lot of papers, but won't
>> review.
>>
>> (4) I used to oppose desk rejections until the day I became an editor.
>>
>> (5) The issue of trust- if you appoint editors you need to trust them to
>> desk reject appropriately.
>>
>> (6) Recommendation that journals adopt fee-based submission policies and
>> actually pay reviewers.
>>
>> (7) Requests for an update on the conversation.
>>
>>
>> I do think we should bring the issue out in the open and discuss it.  It
>> affects all of us, and a public discussion would better inform policy.
>>
>>
>> Cecil Chua
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:37 PM -0500, "Cecil Eng Huang Chua" <
>> aeh.chua at auckland.ac.nz<mailto:aeh.chua at auckland.ac.nz>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I would like to start a discussion on desk rejections at conferences.  I
>> want to start this, because I am editing/have edited for two conferences
>> now where the editor instructions were “no desk rejects.”  A desk rejection
>> occurs when either the track chair or associate editor rejects a paper
>> without sending it to reviewers.
>>
>> I suspect a proper policy is not “no desk rejects.”  It isn’t “give
>> editor all the power to desk reject they want” either.  I am hoping that we
>> will make some of the issues transparent so we can develop good policy.
>>
>> An argument in favor of desk rejection is the total uncompensated
>> manpower required for conference reviewing.  The typical conference
>> structure is track chair, associate editor, and two reviewers.  So, each
>> fully reviewed paper receives 4 man-review units of effort.  If there are
>> 50 papers per track (yes, some tracks have hundreds of papers- bear with
>> me), that’s 200 man-review units in each track.  If there are 15 tracks,
>> that’s 3000 man-review units.  At just 5 major conferences  (ICIS, AMCIS,
>> ECIS, PACIS, ACIS), that’s 15000 man-review units, and we have more than
>> just 5 major conferences.  Desk rejections can shave a lot of uncompensated
>> man-review units from this.
>>
>> A counter argument is that one can get authors of a track to review for
>> the track.  I would note that if the editor feels a paper is of desk
>> rejection quality, that the authors may not be competent to review.
>>
>> An argument against desk rejection is conferences are about providing
>> feedback to authors.  However, this requires uncompensated time from
>> reviewers.  In many of our premier conferences, there’s a pre-submission
>> game where the track chairs try to “reserve” as many reviewers/AEs as
>> possible.  We wouldn’t have that game if there wasn’t a shortage of
>> reliable reviewers.  Indeed, there probably aren’t more that 5000 active
>> researchers in the IS field at any one time- see above 15000 man-review
>> units.  Everyone gets involved in the reviews.  It is unfair to favor
>> authors who benefit from reviews rather than reviewers who are harmed (by
>> having to spend uncompensated time) when they have to do reviews.
>>
>> Frankly, our community seems to underappreciate reviewers.  For the above
>> conservative 15000 man-review units, we maybe give 5 best reviewer awards,
>> which are often paper certificates with no money attached.  Best paper
>> authors receive shiny plaques and often a cheque.  We could argue reviewer
>> competence is recognized because reviewers are invited to become track
>> chairs and editors.  To this, I would note the pyramidal structure of
>> conference/journal organization-many reviewers, few board positions and the
>> fact that appointment to boards is not explicitly based on reviewing
>> competence and is often based on getting papers accepted.  Also, it is not
>> clear to me that being appointed to boards is necessarily a reward.
>>
>> So, that’s my discussion seed.  I’d like to hear your thoughts.
>>
>> Cecil Chua
>> _______________________________________________
>> AISWorld mailing list
>> AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AISWorld mailing list
>> AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org
>
>