Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/106450
Title:
Author experiences with the IS journal review process
Author:
Bhattacharjee, Sudip; Tung, Alex; Pathak, Bhavik
Citation:
Author experiences with the IS journal review process 2004-06, 13(37):629-653 Communications of the AIS
Journal:
Communications of the AIS
Issue Date:
Jun-2004
Description:
Copyright 1999, by the Association for Information Systems. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and full citation on the first page. Copyright for components of this work owned by others than the Association for Information Systems must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers for commercial use, or to redistribute to lists requires prior specific permission and/or fee. Request permission to publish from: AIS Administrative Office, P.O. Box 2712 Atlanta, GA, 30301-2712 Attn: Reprints, or via e-mail from ais@gsu.edu.
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/106450
Submitted date:
2004-06-28
Abstract:
Many IS researchers often face a difficult decision in choosing publication outlets for their research work, as some review process factors are often not well-defined for particular outlets. For example, for time-critical research, a journal with quicker turn-around time (ceteris paribus) might be a better avenue for the work to reach the audience in the shortest time possible. In addition, finding such information is difficult. For example, process information for the same journal is not consistent across individuals, and even across manuscripts submitted by the same individual to a particular journal. This research focuses on quantifying certain metrics in the IS journal review process that are important, yet not well-known to prospective authors. We collected more than 1100 observations on these metrics from 307 authors who experienced the review process. This study provides an initial attempt to pool individual and anecdotal information of these factors into a knowledge repository for current researchers which may help them to make effective decisions on targeting journal outlets. Using concepts from process design and quality control literature, we determine if the review process is under control. Finally, we correlate our findings of these factors with journal rankings from published studies to detect if rankings are impacted by the factors identified by journal editors and researchers. Our results provide a knowledge base of â ¢ the length and quality of the review process in various journals; â ¢ responsiveness of the journal office and publication delay; and â ¢ correlations of metrics with published studies of journal rankings. The data should enable authors to make effective submission decisions, as well as help to benchmark journal review processes among competing journals.
Type:
Journal Article (Paginated)
Language:
en
Keywords:
Scholarly Communication
Local subject classification:
Peer review

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorBhattacharjee, Sudipen_US
dc.contributor.authorTung, Alexen_US
dc.contributor.authorPathak, Bhaviken_US
dc.date.accessioned2004-06-28T00:00:01Z-
dc.date.available2010-06-18T23:46:39Z-
dc.date.issued2004-06en_US
dc.date.submitted2004-06-28en_US
dc.identifier.citationAuthor experiences with the IS journal review process 2004-06, 13(37):629-653 Communications of the AISen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/106450-
dc.descriptionCopyright 1999, by the Association for Information Systems. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and full citation on the first page. Copyright for components of this work owned by others than the Association for Information Systems must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers for commercial use, or to redistribute to lists requires prior specific permission and/or fee. Request permission to publish from: AIS Administrative Office, P.O. Box 2712 Atlanta, GA, 30301-2712 Attn: Reprints, or via e-mail from ais@gsu.edu.en_US
dc.description.abstractMany IS researchers often face a difficult decision in choosing publication outlets for their research work, as some review process factors are often not well-defined for particular outlets. For example, for time-critical research, a journal with quicker turn-around time (ceteris paribus) might be a better avenue for the work to reach the audience in the shortest time possible. In addition, finding such information is difficult. For example, process information for the same journal is not consistent across individuals, and even across manuscripts submitted by the same individual to a particular journal. This research focuses on quantifying certain metrics in the IS journal review process that are important, yet not well-known to prospective authors. We collected more than 1100 observations on these metrics from 307 authors who experienced the review process. This study provides an initial attempt to pool individual and anecdotal information of these factors into a knowledge repository for current researchers which may help them to make effective decisions on targeting journal outlets. Using concepts from process design and quality control literature, we determine if the review process is under control. Finally, we correlate our findings of these factors with journal rankings from published studies to detect if rankings are impacted by the factors identified by journal editors and researchers. Our results provide a knowledge base of â ¢ the length and quality of the review process in various journals; â ¢ responsiveness of the journal office and publication delay; and â ¢ correlations of metrics with published studies of journal rankings. The data should enable authors to make effective submission decisions, as well as help to benchmark journal review processes among competing journals.en_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectScholarly Communicationen_US
dc.subject.otherPeer reviewen_US
dc.titleAuthor experiences with the IS journal review processen_US
dc.typeJournal Article (Paginated)en_US
dc.identifier.journalCommunications of the AISen_US
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.