[AISWorld] Sound conference desk rejection policy

[Cecil Eng Huang Chua]

Umm... typically we get track chairs who are within the domain of the track.  I, for example, am often involved in project management tracks.  You'd think I'd know something about project management research.

When an empirical paper from a track comes to you that:
-has no methodology section or a very weak methodology section
-does not cite the relevant literature (see above about track chairs knowing the domain)
-makes statements but not arguments (i.e., does not justify its thinking)

I feel asking the authors of that paper to review someone else's paper is a bad idea.  This isn't imperialist.  It is taking prima facie evidence- the authors don't know what they are doing- to make a judgement call.

Conference tracks are open- anyone can submit.  The assumption that authors in a track know the subject area of the track is really dangerous.  I agree with asking authors to review if the paper they submit demonstrates knowledge of the track.

I am not against tapping authors as reviewers.  I am against blindly tapping authors as reviewers.  

Cecil Chua


________________________________________
From: AISWorld <aisworld-bounces at lists.aisnet.org> on behalf of mmora at securenym.net <mmora at securenym.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 8:05 AM
To: aisworld at lists.aisnet.org
Subject: Re: [AISWorld] Sound conference desk rejection policy

Colleagues, I agree with comments on the explosion of conferences and
micro-topics asked in conferences. Our research CFPs and discipline? is
ontologically flawed (conceptually redundant, overlapped and
under-conceptualized and fashion-driven one). On rejection and objections
on authors' role for doing reviews, it suggests a lack of trust in our
peers interested in the topic track and the application of some
"imperialist" (term used from a Critical Systems perspective) review
politics. It is clear that senior track chairs can identify levels of
expertise and an automatic rejection on the suggestion that authors of the
same track make reviews just increase the problem. Why  should external
reviewers be more expert than interested ones in the track where they are
submitting a paper?
Manuel Mora

PS. Zhang, H., Kishore, R., & Ramesh, R. (2004). Ontological analysis of
the MibML grammar using the Bunge-Wand-Weber Model, is a good reference on
flawed ontology problems.

---------------------------------------------
Manuel Mora, EngD.
Full-time 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
http://x3620a-labdc.uaa.mx:8080/web/drmora
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, February 28, 2017 8:41 am, Jerry Flatto wrote:
> As I read the comments on this topic, let me add a few comments.
>
>
> First, as noted, reviewing articles is not beneficial from the university
> perspective.  By this, I mean what gets a faculty member "promoted and
> tenured" in most locations.  Thus, there is a disincentive to spend too
> much time reviewing articles.
>
> At the same time, there is a great need for reviewers.  Let's ignore any
> journals for a moment.  I invite you to count the number of conferences
> and calls for papers that is distributed on the AISWorld list over the
> course of a week (or even day) and the corresponding number of reviewers
> needed to support all these papers submitted for conferences.   Do we
> have too many conferences that just makes the situation worse?  I realize
> that I may have opened a "tempest" but something else to look at.
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
>
> "No trees were harmed in the sending of this message; however, a large
> number of electrons were slightly inconvenienced..."
>
> Dr. Jerry Flatto, Professor, Information Systems Department - School of
> Business
> University of Indianapolis, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
> mailto:jflatto at uindy.edu
>
>
> Confidentiality Notice: This communication and/or its content are for the
> sole use of the intended recipient, and may be privileged, confidential,
> or otherwise protected from disclosure by law.  If you are not the
> intended recipient, please notify the sender and then delete all copies
> of it.  Unless you are the intended recipient, your use or dissemination
> of the information contained in this communication may be illegal.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AISWorld mailing list
> AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org
>
>



_______________________________________________
AISWorld mailing list
AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org