Becoming a Great Reviewer for IS Journals

The IS field needs more great reviewers. What is a great reviewer? In her June 2005 editorial for MIS Quarterly, Carol Saunders, the MISQ Editor in Chief, contrasts the gatekeeper reviewer – one who finds and surfaces fatal flaws in research – with the diamond cutter reviewer – one who polishes manuscripts so that the gems in it can surface and shine. Others have argued that a great reviewer is a champion for the paper to the journals editors – so that uncut diamonds are not lost to the field. Our field needs great reviewers of all these types (which, some would argue, are often found in the same great reviewer). This panel presents advice about how to become a great reviewer for IS journals from 4 reviewers who have been recognized as excellent reviewers by editors of various journals in the information systems field. Collectively they will present 12 key characteristics of good reviews, 12 key characteristics of a review process that will produce great reviews, and 4 very important golden rules of reviewing -- Dos and Don\u27ts. They will also distribute a list of suggested reading for those interested in learning more about how to improve their reviewing skills. During the Q&A period, audience members will be asked to write their questions down and submit them to the panel chair, who will moderate them. This should allow the maximum number of questions to be posed to the panel during a short period of time

Peer review innovations in Humanities: how can scholars in A&H profit of the "wisdom of the crowds"?

Though supported by a large number of scholars in Scientific, Technical, and Medical (STM) disciplines traditional peer review does not live up to the needs of an efficient scholarly communication system and of quality research control. Therefore journals in STM are experimenting different forms of refereeing in combination with more traditional peer review system. Such is the case of PLoSONE, Biology Direct, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, and JIME. However in STM disciplines public peer review is not regarded an alternative to more traditional quality certification forms. It may be the case in the Arts & Humanities. In A&H publishing system peer review is by far a less common practice. Therefore the adoption of a social peer review process could be very useful to foster research in humanities. Scholars in A&H can profit of the interactive evaluation forms of the public peer-review to strengthen the scholarly debate, to foster active international and interdisciplinary discussions, to focus social attention on topics in Humanities, to broaden the borders of the cultural and intellectual discourse among non-scholars (public debate). This paper will provide some examples of how social peer review has been adopted by innovative communities of scholars in humanities to publish new experimental digital book models. In the digital environment the concepts of “document”, of “completeness of a document” and of “evaluation” is fast changing. In a close future in scholarly publishing it might become possible to overcome the rigid distinction between ex-ante and ex-post evaluation as the evaluation process might become an enduring part of the text itsel

IEEE Access special section editorial: Artificial intelligence enabled networking

With today’s computer networks becoming increasingly dynamic, heterogeneous, and complex, there is great interest in deploying artificial intelligence (AI) based techniques for optimization and management of computer networks. AI techniques—that subsume multidisciplinary techniques from machine learning, optimization theory, game theory, control theory, and meta-heuristics—have long been applied to optimize computer networks in many diverse settings. Such an approach is gaining increased traction with the emergence of novel networking paradigms that promise to simplify network management (e.g., cloud computing, network functions virtualization, and software-defined networking) and provide intelligent services (e.g., future 5G mobile networks). Looking ahead, greater integration of AI into networking architectures can help develop a future vision of cognitive networks that will show network-wide intelligent behavior to solve problems of network heterogeneity, performance, and quality of service (QoS)

More than Decisions: Reviews of American Law Reports in the Pre-West Era

In the early nineteenth century, both general literary periodicals and the first American legal journals often featured reviews of new volumes of U.S. Supreme Court and state court opinions, suggesting their importance not only to lawyers seeking the latest cases, but to members of the public. The reviews contributed to public discourse through comments on issues raised in the cases and the quality of the reporting, and were valued as forums for commentary on the law and its role in American society, particularly during debates on codification and the future of the common law in the 1820s. James Kent saw the reports as worthy of study by scholars of taste and literature, or to be read for their drama and displays of great feeling. By the 1840s fewer lengthy reviews of reports were published in the journals, but shorter reviews continued in the years prior to and after the Civil War; they largely disappeared with the emergence of West’s National Reporter System and other privately published reporters in the 1880s. This paper examines role and influences of the reviews in earlier decades of the century

Review times in peer review: quantitative analysis of editorial workflows

We examine selected aspects of peer review and suggest possible improvements. To this end, we analyse a dataset containing information about 300 papers submitted to the Biochemistry and Biotechnology section of the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society. After separating the peer review process into stages that each review has to go through, we use a weighted directed graph to describe it in a probabilistic manner and test the impact of some modifications of the editorial policy on the efficiency of the whole process

How Can We Change Our Habits If We Don’t Talk About Them?

For the late nineteenth century pragmatists, habits were of great interest. Habits, and the habit of changing habits, they believed, reflected if not defined human rationality, leadingWilliam James to describe habit as “the enormous fly-wheel of society.” What the pragmatists did not adequately address (at least for us) is the role of power relations in the process of changing habits. In this article we discuss our experience of attempting to engage critique and reflection on habitual practices in music teacher education, offering the reader an article within an article. That is, we reflect on our failure to publish a critical article in a widely read practitioner journal by sharing the original manuscript and its reviews, with the hope that our experience might shed additional light on social reproduction and efforts aimed at change

Reviewing, Reviewers and the Scientific Enterprise

Despite their critical importance to the scientific enterprise, reviewers receive no formal training and reviewing has become a skill that they pick up through trial and error. Additionally, because most reviewers do not receive any feedback on their performance, any bad reviewing habits become entrenched over time. This has contributed to significant and unnecessary anxiety about reviewing and to antagonistic encounters between reviewers and authors. This paper seeks to correct this situation by defining reviewers as co-creators of scholarship and the reviewing as a quality control process in the production of scientific scholarship. The paper provides three groups of activities aimed at creating the right mindset among reviewers to facilitate this co-creation and quality control perspective: relationships, commitment and honest decisions and recommendations.reviewers, reviewing, scientific enterprise, scholarship, co-creations, Teaching/Communication/Extension/Profession,

In praise of the referee

There has been a lively debate in many fields, including statistics and related applied fields such as psychology and biomedical research, on possible reforms of the scholarly publishing system. Currently, referees contribute so much to improve scientific papers, both directly through constructive criticism and indirectly through the threat of rejection. We discuss ways in which new approaches to journal publication could continue to make use of the valuable efforts of peer reviewers.Comment: 13 page

Normalizing Rejection

Getting turned down for grant funding or having a manuscript rejected is an uncomfortable but not unusual occurrence during the course of a nurse researcher’s professional life. Rejection can evoke an emotional response akin to the grieving process that can slow or even undermine productivity. Only by “normalizing” rejection, that is, by accepting it as an integral part of the scientific process, can researchers more quickly overcome negative emotions and instead use rejection to refine and advance their scientific programs. This article provides practical advice for coming to emotional terms with rejection and delineates methods for working constructively to address reviewer comments

'Reviews in History' and peer review in the digital age

This paper discusses the development of the IHR's open access reviews journal, Reviews in History, and goes on to consider some of the ways in which peer review, both pre- and post-publication, might evolve in the coming months and years. It was given at a conference held to mark the launch of a new open-access reviews platform, recensio.net