[AISWorld] More on journal cycle times

[mmora at securenym.net]

Colleagues Prof. Murray, Prof. Palvia,

These comments can be useful for next ICIS meetings held by EiCs from
top journals. My additional comments on past ones are the following:

a) Tenure tracks promotions rely strongly on accepted papers in top
journals, and final judges/reviewers play a core role for it.

b) IS Faculty has many duties but in other disciplines (Chemistry, Biology,
   Healthcare) are also overloaded. The core self-examination is
   to analyze our current cycle of review, which is obsolete.

c) I respect totally the free-time assigned for the review academic
service provided by many colleagues. My concern, is how can the experts in
other disciplines be more efficient and effective than us?

Prof. Mora



On Wed, April 1, 2015 9:34 am, Shailendra Palvia wrote:
> Dear all:
>
>
> Very well said, Murray.  There must be a reward system for reviewers.
>
>
> Good/great reviewers are hard to find.  I have been editing JITCAR
> (Journal of IT Case and Application Research) since 1999 (with a break
> for 5 years during 2009-2013).
>
> Reward system can be institutionalized through the university or another
> institution in which the reviewers work or through the publisher where
> papers are published.
>
> Sincerely
>
>
>
> Dr. Shailendra Palvia
> Professor of MIS, College of Management
> Long Island University Post, Brookville, NY 11801.
> http://liu.edu/CWPost/Academics/Faculty/Faculty/P/Shailendra-Palvia?rn=Fac
> ulty+Profiles&ru=/CWPost/Academics/Faculty/Faculty Phone #: 732-983-7034
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AISWorld [mailto:aisworld-bounces at lists.aisnet.org] On Behalf Of
> MurphJen at aol.com
> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 5:57 AM
> To: mmora at securenym.net; aisworld at lists.aisnet.org
> Cc: tstaffor at memphis.edu
> Subject: Re: [AISWorld] More on journal cycle times
>
>
> There are flaws in the below logic, yes a good review can be done in a
> few hours but unfortunately we are all limited by time and what we can
> focus our  attention on.  I'm an editor in chief of two journals and I
> can say that we  have more people wanting to submit articles than we have
> people wanting to  review articles.  It is simple economics of publish or
> perish with little  to no reward for reviewing.  I think I see only
> occasionally an email that  mentions the best reviewer but see many
> emails on best papers or announcing new  issues being published.  A few
> hours seems like a little, but how much time  do we spend doing our jobs?
> Many of us have to teach as well as do  research, and of course there is
> always service.  The last several years of  poor budgets has raised the
> teaching and service loads.  We do give course  reductions as rewards.  I
> have never, ever seen a course reduction given because of reviewing but do
> see it frequently for publishing articles. Also, how many do great
> reviews?  I get new reviewers and many submit  simple one paragraph
> reviews, not helpful to me or the authors.  So what do  we do? We punish
> bad reviewers by not asking them to review and reward  good reviewers by
> giving them more and more reviews.  Doesn't work, good  reviewers get to
> the point where they refuse further reviews, many are burned  out, and
> who can blame them?  I have seen many complaints on this list  about long
> review times and poor reviews but I have yet to see anyone push  changing
> the publishing economics (yes we do respond to the complaints with this
> suggestion but then we hear how we just need to work harder and we owe it
> to authors to get their papers processed).
>
> I agree we need to change the review process, but please, lets quit
> complaining about the editors and reviewers and instead suggest ways to
> make the publishing process manageable and rewarding to all those who make
> it work. I am getting a break next year because of being a editor in
> chief, but I've also  been told it won't happen again, I need to publish
> my own research if I want any  more reductions.  Guess what, I have
> several papers stacked up waiting for  me to write them and analyze the
> data, but they are on hold as I service other  authors in getting their
> work published.  Please remember next time you  want to complain about
> review times all the editors and reviewers who are  volunteering their
> time to try and make this process work.
>
> If you want to address a large part of the problem lets look at
> conference reviewing.  How many conference announcements do we see?
> (hundreds) and each one of these conferences has to review their papers
> and of course most universities don't want to send their faculty to
> present at a conference that  accepts all papers, they want a 50%
> acceptance rate, so to get that how many  papers do we need to fill in all
> the tracks, minitracks, and sessions? ICIS boasts a very low acceptance
> rate an is such is considered the best, so  what happens?  We get dozens
> pre and post conferences around ICIS because  again, most of our
> universities won't send us to a conference unless we have a  paper
> accepted.  So how much reviewing time is spent on conference papers?  And
> what is the reward for having a conference paper  accepted?  For most
> universities it is very little yet we spend amazing  amounts of reviewer
> resources on these papers.
>
> If you want faster review times for journals fix the conference reviewing
> issue.  That is my best suggestion short of making reviewing a part of
> tenure and promotion.
>
> Thanks and sorry for the rant....murray jennex
>
>
>
> In a message dated 3/31/2015 10:15:55 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> mmora at securenym.net writes:
>
> AIS  colleagues:
> First of all, I appreciate totally comments from senior  researchers who
> know "the real inside situation" lived in top tier journals  in our
> discipline. I agree with Professor Stafford, who has a vast  expertise as
> EiC of top tier journals on this undesired situation, where it  seems
> there is not an easy solution for this messy academic problem in our
> discipline. On plausible feasible solutions, awards for reviewers should
> be  also provided, but it is assumed implicitly for belonging to ERB of
> top journals. In summary, it seems there is not a near and feasible
> solution in our discipline, which runs the risks to be a closed system
> (papers published only for gaining a PhD or a tenure track position or
> being read mandatory by our graduate students) but rarely transferred to
> main stakeholders (IT customers, IT users, IT community)). Of course,
> there  are exceptions in our discipline like Communications of the ACM,
> like one  of the best examples of top tier journals. Thanks, more
> comments are  welcome! Manuel Mora
> PS. High quality reviewers should be able to  qualify a paper in few
> hours, like medical experts can establish a critical  diagnosis on few
> ones (even in minutes). Are our papers (in our discipline)  so difficult
> to be understood regarding the research papers in Chemistry,  Health
> Sciences or Biological Sciences?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon,  March 30, 2015 9:06 pm, Thomas Stafford (tstaffor) wrote:
>
>> Prof Mora  raises interesting issues in his response to my response to
>> his  well-put points on publication queues  :-)
>>
>>>>> judges for accepting a paper are the reviewers, and they are  not
>>>>>  valued.>>>
>>
>> I agree. As long  as reviewing is considered unimportant by department
>> chairs, Deans,  and tenure and promotion committees, reviewers are going
>> to give first  priority to the work that gets them promoted and
>> tenured. Who would  not?  Until we find a solution to this, much else
>> that we can do  is only a bandaid solution. Incented reviewers are
>> critical to the  process.
>>
>> There is a pragmatic yet informal quid pro quo at  journals:  "those
>> who wish to enjoy the peer review services  should contribute to the peer
>> review services as well." It is not  actually stated as a requirement,
>> but everybody understands. Not  everybody honors it, but it is known.
>> However, that still leaves  reviewing, which the Dean
>> does not view with approval at tenure  decision time, as a "last in the
>> queue" work  activity.
>>
>>>>> the effective time for review a paper  can be estimated on 2-3
>>>>> hours in 2-3 iterations, so the  problem is the scheduling of the
>>>>>  paper assigned by the  reviewer, so it is very likely that the
>>>>> paper is in stand  by for months. This is the process review
>>>>> problem. None of  us can believe that the review process lasted
>>>>> several  months because reviewers read the paper all of this
>>>>> time.>>>
>>
>> Well, yes and no. For no, see above:   reviewing is a last-in-line
>> activity owing to how it is (not) incented  by the bodies who decide rank
>> and tenure. For yes, we have to question  the assumption of time to
>> initiation. There is the simple Poisson  problem of time to point of
>> processing in waiting queues, but these  problems are always analyzed
>> ceteris paribus. Plainly put, we can't  easily assume that a reviewer
>> attends immediately to an assignment  once received, so even if we can
>> optimize the queue to assignment, the  wait time for processing once
>> assigned also depends on myriad factors.  Generally, we scholars who
>> regularly review teach our classes and  attend our committee meetings
>> before we turn to our outside service  work. There is a wait time.
>>
>> But, in all, I still agree with  the Professor:  it only takes a few
>> hours to render a quality  evaluation of a paper. The slowdown is in the
>> intake/assignment  process, if one puts aside the notion that reviewers
>> should jump  immediately to assignments when received.
>>
>>>>> Biology,  Chemistry, Medicine have faster
>>>>> review-acceptance/rejection time frames and they have zero  fee
>>>>> costs for publishing
>>
>> Stay tuned. This  is exactly where I intend to do my own benchmarking.
>> Fortunately,  quite fortunately, indeed, I have on my Senior Board a
>> credentialed MD  who also holds the Ph.D. in operations. He is a
>> treasure, since we get  lots of healthcare papers. He also edits for and
>> publishes in the  medical community, and he and I just shared a time on
>> the phone  talking about these things. The defining factor I discern in
>> the  fast-as-lighting turnaround times at the preeminent medical
>> journals  is *professional staff* because publications like JAMA and
>> NEJM are  run by a professionals who don't have to teach
>> classes or publish  their own research. Nothing gets work done like
>> paying people to do  it, I say.
>>
>> There is another journal in the Sciences legendary  for quick
>> turnaround:
>> PLOS, the Public Library of Science. However, it  is a business,
>> unabashedly. Each accepted article carries a $1300 fee  for acceptance,
>> and the revenue stream from that supports an  operational staff of 15
>> who see to it quite effectively that the  trains run on time. They do
>> have some technological innovations  (amazing what you can do with
>> money, isn't it?), which are things that  have been in my mind lately,
>> as well. Searchable database of reviewer  expertise and current
>> assignment loads, for example, where you can  instantly search out just
>> the right set of credentials for reviewing a  given paper and then check
>> to see if that chosen individual is not  already over-assigned or not.
>>
>> I predict we are at the cusp of  a paradigm shift in peer review of
>> scholarly research. Emerging  business models are worth considering, and
>> science-as-business is also  a notion not to be dismissed. Most of what
>> keeps us alive and healthy  in the world of medicine resides in some
>> point on the profit motive of  somebody somewhere in the medical food
>> chain. It results in  lightning-fast research reviews for publication,
>> though, and that gets  my attention.
>>
>> On the side of constituent pressure for quicker  queues to acceptance
>> for articles, there is the equally important and  increasingly popular
>> issue of what I will call "publication bounties."  When scholars are
>> paid interestingly large amounts of money as a bonus  for successful
>> publication in premier journals -- well, of course they  get anxious to
>> find out what has happened with a given submission as  quickly as
>> possible. Big money is riding on that decision. Yet, it  remains that
>> the folks upon whom they rely and become increasingly  impatient with
>> for results are not given bounties for reviewing the  work that will be
>> subsequently rewarded when published. This is a  business scholarship
>> issue to think about; we appear to be handsomely incentivizing the
>> production of scholarly research, but not its review. Marx would have
>> field day with that economic  equation.
>>
>> I am so glad folks are noticing this issue. We won't  get anywhere on
>> the top-level problem, which is incentivizing  reviewers, without
>> widespread awareness of the issue at a general  level, I think.
>>
>> Humbly submitted for your further  consideration,
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom Stafford
>> Editor, Decision  Sciences  Journal
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AISWorld  mailing  list
> AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AISWorld mailing list
> AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org
>
>