Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The associate editor and senior editor roles in premier IS journals

2021; Wiley; Volume: 31; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1111/isj.12332

1365-2575

Monideepa Tarafdar, Robert M. Davison,

Information and Cyber Security

There are many articles and commentaries on how to be a good reviewer (e.g., Davison, 2014; Davison et al., 2005; Lee, 1995; Rai, 2016; Saunders, 2005). The ISJ has developed its own guidelines for reviewers, available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/13652575/homepage/for-reviewers. However, if one wants to know how to be a good Associate Editor (AE) or Senior Editor (SE), there are fewer places to look for guidance. While the experience of reviewing many papers is usually necessary in order to be a good AE or SE, it is not sufficient. We do not believe that good AEs and SEs emerge by default or happenstance. Competent AEs and SEs do particular things in managing and conducting the review process. In this editorial, we lay out what we think these are, organising this material as a set of comprehensive guidelines. They are not intended to be mandatory prescriptions: we do not expect that every SE and AE follow each and every one to the letter. Instead, we expect that SEs and AEs will exercise their own judgement and prerogative in accordance with their respective roles. In a typical journal, the SE is the person in executive charge of the paper's journey through the review and improvement process. The SE assigns the paper to an AE who has experience/expertise in its domain. The AE is responsible for organising the reviews. The AE sends the paper to reviewers (typically 2–4), and, informed by their reviews, makes a recommendation to the SE regarding the paper. The SE takes into account the AE's recommendation and the comments of the reviewers, before reaching a decision that reflects both their positions and also the SE's own view. Both the AE and the SE are expected to read the paper before they reach their respective recommendations/decisions. In the following paragraphs, we provide a more detailed account of these activities, as they are conducted at the ISJ, and also as are typical in premier IS journals. (Note: At some of these journals, the roles of the SE and AE are combined into an overall SE or AE role, where one person undertakes the work of both roles.) Pre-Review screening: This is the step that gets everything started: getting familiar with the paper. The SE, when assigning the paper, should give the AE an indication of what they think regarding its readiness for full review: is the topic interesting, are the methods rigorous, does the paper fit the journal, are there any obvious problems? The AE should read the paper, get a sense of its domain, methods and contribution and consider these in the light of the journal. If there are major or glaring shortcomings especially with respect to the contribution, methods and data, then a desk reject (or a desk revise and resubmit) may be in order. Likewise, if there is a lack of fit with the journal's domains and topics the SE/AE can reject the paper or ask the authors for a revision to enhance the fit of the submission with the journal. A common reason for a desk-reject involves a mismatch between the stated and actual research question and contribution, or failure to deliver the stated contribution. Other criteria that may need to be assessed include plagiarism or self-plagiarism and resubmissions of conference papers. General guidelines for authors submitting to the ISJ can be found here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/13652575/homepage/forauthors.html. It may so happen that while the paper is a good fit, there are obvious issues that can or need to be fixed to make the reviewing process fruitful. For example, the paper may be too long, the language may be poor, or may be incorrectly formatted. Necessary content such as the construct details and items may be missing. Papers may also suffer from weak presentation, even when the ideas themselves are interesting, in which case copy editing may be needed before the review process starts. Occasionally, papers are submitted as a manuscript type (e.g. research article, research opinion, practitioner paper, etc.) for which they are clearly unsuited. In these cases, the SE can decide to ask for revisions before moving it forward into review. Once the paper passes the screening stage, it should be sent out for review. The most competent AEs write up their first impressions of the paper at this stage. There are two benefits to this: it helps the AE decide how many and what kinds of reviewers are needed; it also ensures that when the reviews are submitted, the AE has access to their own first impressions of the paper, as the basis of the AE report. Whether the paper is simple or complex to handle, we recommend that the SE and AE maintain an on-going conversation at various points throughout the review process. The specifics of when (e.g. typical points are before the paper goes for review and after the reviews come in, but there could be others) and how (e.g. synchronous or asynchronous) will depend on the individuals in these two roles, the reviews, and the paper. The best SEs use such conversations to mentor AEs and the best AEs view them as opportunities to learn. Selecting reviewers: Reviewers should be selected based on a combination of topic/domain, theory, method and industry. They should have substantial expertise in the paper's subject matter. The AE should identify a list of potential reviewers, keeping in mind conflicts of interest, such as their having completed their doctoral studies at the same institution as the authors, dissertation supervisor or committee member, mentors, co-authors and family members. Some journals explicitly state their criteria regarding conflicts of interest, with which the AE should be familiar. Sources of potential reviewers include the authors cited in the submitted paper, people suggested by the authors, and the AE's own network of colleagues. Selecting people from Manuscript Central who do not fall into these three categories may not be fruitful because they may not complete their review on time or to a high standard. It is a good idea for the AE to run the list of potential reviewers by the SE. Asking those who are well published and experienced in the topic to review can be a double-edged sword: they may say yes but not have the time, or they may turn in the best reviews! If required (e.g. the paper may be in a difficult genre or may be otherwise atypical), the SE and AE can collectively select the actual panel of reviewers. Certainly, if the AE is in two minds about a particular person, (e.g. it may be that someone seems like a good fit, but they are known to have many commitments) they should consult the SE. The SE and AE may agree on the order of eventual selection in case the first choices are not available. Managing the review process: It is the AE's responsibility to stay in touch and follow up with reviewers. These communications are better coordinated via Manuscript Central because then a log of conversations will be maintained. AEs need to be sensitive to deadlines and reach out to reviewers in case of delayed reviews, answer any questions that reviewers might have, discuss extension requests with the SE, and generally keep track of the review process. AEs typically handle many papers at a time, so the best ones maintain a spreadsheet with attendant deadlines for all the papers being handled. SEs expect reviewers to be responsive to the AE and deliver quality reviews, but typically they do not get into the operational aspects of reviewer communication and review deadlines. Instead, they trust that the AE is keeping track of the timelines and is in touch with reviewers as necessary. Typical timelines for returning reviews vary from journal to journal but a period of 4–8 weeks covers most journals. AEs should generally consult with the SE when reviewers request deadline extensions, since the SE needs to keep an overall sense of the process. Indeed, we recommend that SEs maintain a spreadsheet of their own papers, as they typically handle more than the AE does. After the reviews are in: If the reviewers have done a good job, the AE will have a set of reviews that provide a 360-degree view of the paper. Of course, that is not always the case. Sometimes, the AE will find that a particular reviewer is not clear about what they want to say. In that case, we suggest they schedule a short meeting to get clarity and find out which problems they think are more, or less, serious. Occasionally, the AE may not agree with some aspects of a review (e.g. typos or very strong language). In such cases, we suggest you explain your perspective to the reviewer and ask them to reconsider their position. Most reviewers are reasonable and open to this discussion, such that a consensual outcome is possible. However, some reviewers may be intractable, in which case you may have to explain in your AE report that the authors should ignore certain aspects of a review. A more serious problem happens when you think that a review is not substantive enough. You could ask the reviewer to revise it, but they may not have the time, inclination or wherewithal to do so. You may need to invite a new reviewer, but to do this without delaying the review process unreasonably means that you have to read reviews immediately when they arrive and decide if they are good enough. Great AEs maintain a stable of experienced reviewers in their networks on whom they can call in a pinch. Writing the AE report: Good AE reports do not just "add up" the reviewer reports, nor do they simply say "R1 said this and R2 said this. Fix all these issues." Rather, they synthesise and integrate the reviewer perspectives and in addition include their own voice. Remember the initial pre-review draft you wrote? Once you have read the paper, it is a good idea to go back to that. You will find that you agree with many things you wrote at the time, while other things will seem less important, and new things will emerge. If the recommendation is a revision, the best AEs will state what they think the opportunities and challenges for the paper are vis-à-vis possible publication. It is important to lay out a plan and a path that will take the paper forward even if the reviewers diverge, putting forth an integrative view that frames the paper in a better way than perhaps even the authors envisage. To our mind, this is perhaps the hardest and yet the most interesting part of being an AE. As AE, you are closer to the topic and the paper than the SE is. Your report should be specific, for example, "This is a problem for this reason. Do this to fix the problem, for this reason." Prioritise the comments (e.g. major and minor) and make a recommendation that can be backed up by logic and an overall evaluation of the paper. If you think the paper has potential, you are in the best position to help the authors find that hidden gemstone. Try to get under the paper's skin and explore what the authors are trying to do. The gemstones to look for are novel ideas, innovative methods, unique contexts and compelling implications for theory and practice. A paper does not need to have all these gemstones; it needs to have enough and it should highlight them convincingly. Judicious limitations can put the ordinary stones in context (cf. Davison, 2017). It gets a bit more difficult when the reviewers go in opposite or conflicting directions, since then you have to be clear with the authors about your own judgement. You do not have to agree with everything that reviewers say and nor do you have to go with the majority reviewer perspective. But do not leave the authors wondering about whose advice they need to take: yours or the reviewers. Be specific about what you expect from the authors and be clear about how you want them to deal with the reviewers' comments. Your own knowledge and understanding of the subject matter, integrity and good sense are all important attributes to call on when you make your AE recommendation. Even if the recommendation is to reject the paper, the best AEs will write a brief and constructive review highlighting the submission's strengths, outlining the key points/big problems that the authors can fix, and thus help the authors improve the work for other outlets, or another submission. There may be instances where you may want to reach out to the SE, for example, when you want to overrule reviewers or when a review is problematic or when you think it is touch and go for a revise and resubmit. The best AEs discuss issues with the SE before writing their report. They also keep notes on reviewer performance, because excellent reviewers are potentially the AEs of the future. Decision time: The SE's decision is informed primarily by the AE's recommendation, especially if they have communicated at key points in the process. However, they will still need to read both the paper and the reviews to form their own view. Discuss the paper and reviews with the AE if needed: this signals to the AE that you are involved and that you recognise their efforts. One of the most satisfying review processes (the paper was eventually accepted) that one of us handled as AE had the SE reaching out to discuss not only the reviews and AE report, but also indicating support for the AE's views and letting the AE know what they would be putting in their note to the authors and why. Like the AE vis-à-vis the reviewers, the SE does not have to accept the AE's recommendation. While the AE is closer to the paper, the SE should take a broader, more holistic perspective with respect to its interestingness, relevance and novelty in the larger scheme of the journal and indeed the discipline when making a decision. The SE report should indicate high-level issues to be addressed and the order of priority. It should also give directions when the AE provides various options and the SE thinks one or more options should be followed. SEs should also indicate where they do not necessarily emphasise the same points that the AE does, or want to emphasise a new point. Some senior colleagues we have worked with suggest that in case of a revise and resubmit, the SE (in cases where they are not blind to the authors) can take the opportunity to talk to the authors about their paper, not just write to them. However, we believe that this is very much a matter of SE preference. A first round reject usually happens because of the lack of a theoretical contribution, a rigorous research design or a valid and credible story, none of which can be easily addressed in a revision. A second (or later) round rejection typically happens when the authors neither execute the review team's suggestions nor provide credible and rigorous reasons for not doing so. Of course, no paper is perfect, even in the final version. SEs have the prerogative to make a final decision on a paper. They should assess when it is time to stop the review process and accept or reject the paper. The SE should carefully evaluate later round decisions. It may so happen, for example, that all the reviewers are not yet ready to recommend acceptance even after several rounds. While AEs and SEs should consider the reviewers' recommendations, competent AEs and SEs make their own evaluation of the paper. They are prepared to move it forward if they see a path to publication or reject it if they do not. While we are not suggesting that papers should not be rejected in advanced rounds, we emphasise that it is easier to reject a paper than to guide it through successive rounds of improvement to eventual publication. It is difficult to walk in the authors' shoes and "visualise" a published paper when perhaps even the authors cannot. But this is what competent SEs and AEs do and this is why being a good reviewer is not enough to make a good AE or SE. A reject and resubmit decision after one or more rounds of review most commonly occurs when the review team identifies major problems with theory, method or data, and it is not clear that the authors will be able to address them. In these cases, the SE may reject the current version of the paper and invite the submission of a new paper. The SE should emphasise to authors that they are not requesting a major revision and that a completely new paper that is vastly different from the former submission is expected, should the authors want to re-submit. Such a paper can be on the same topic, and perhaps with the same research question, but with new theory, potentially a new method, and usually new data. Revisions: When a revision comes in, the SE and AE should both read the paper and then consult with each other before the paper is sent out for review. Are they optimistic about the revision? Do all of the original reviewers need to be invited? Do new reviewers need to be brought in, for instance where the paper has taken a new direction and a new domain of knowledge (literature, method, theory) needs to be assessed? When and if it becomes clear that a paper is moving towards acceptance, the SE and AE may not invite the reviewers at all, but instead work with the authors directly. This generally accelerates the review process and helps to ensure that papers can be accepted more expeditiously. Managing author expectations throughout the process is important. Some author teams (very few) are unfortunately belligerent or obnoxious. They may insult the knowledge or intelligence of the review team in their revision response. A few may demand that a paper be accepted for a variety of spurious reasons. A few may even engage forcefully with the outcomes of reviews, especially when a paper is rejected, and threaten to sue the journal or the review team. In these cases, the SE will involve the Editor-in-Chief who will, as necessary, communicate an appropriate message to the authors and draw in other resources such as those of the publisher or professional societies. Timeliness matters, kindness matters: Authors place a great deal of trust in the journal to which they submit the paper, notably trust that the paper will be assessed fairly and competently within a reasonable period of time. AEs and SEs are the primary custodians of that trust. They are the journal's human face to the scholarly community, even when they are themselves anonymous. It is therefore critical that all members of the review team return their reports in a timely fashion. All SEs, AEs and reviewers are themselves practicing scholars who will be authors submitting to (often the same) journals, so treat authors as you would wish to be treated yourself. The professional success and careers of our junior colleagues depend on this timeliness. Interesting ideas need to be out in the scholarly world sooner rather than later, so that colleagues can read and take them further: the intellectual progress of our discipline depends on it. Further, whether you are rejecting or accepting a paper, whether you are communicating good or bad news, it is important to be kind and constructive. It shows that you and the journal you represent respect and acknowledge the authors' efforts, whether or not you agree with them. A senior colleague once said to one of us "Even if you think that it is a bad paper, please be polite". As an AE or SE, you set the tone of communication with authors. In a world where you can be anything, be kind! It is important to have fun: Being an AE and SE is voluntary, indeed the whole basis of peer-review depends on people being willing to take on these roles. It provides the opportunity to learn and have fun. You may have to read other papers to fully understand a paper you are handling. On occasion, you may even have to read about a new topic or method. If you are lucky you will come across (at least a few) papers that may shift your points of view, show you something different, inspire you to learn about a topic you did not know about. We wish all AEs and SEs many such experiences! Acknowledgements: We appreciate the detailed feedback offered by Cynthia Beath, Antonio Diaz Andrade, Phillip Powell and Sutirtha Chatterjee on this editorial. In this issue of the ISJ, we present four papers. In the first paper, Cram et al. (2021) explore the growing concerns surrounding employees who become fatigued with guidelines and procedures associated with information security policies. Drawing on interviews with business and IT professionals, they construct a model to frame the elements that characterise the symptoms of security fatigue, as well as its distinct antecedents (i.e., inconvenience, illegitimacy, quantity of communications, method of communications) and consequences (i.e., ignoring policy requirements, pursuing workarounds, minimising efforts). The study makes an important contribution to the security policy compliance literature by providing fresh insights into how emotional states such as frustration and tiredness can drive seemingly well-meaning employees to violate organisational regulations. The authors caution practitioners against overwhelming employees with an excess of security guidance, instead recommending that they adopt a "less is more" strategy that takes a targeted and nuanced approach. In the second paper, Chatterjee et al. (2021) contribute to the debate on whether there is a central artefact that captures the essence of information systems (IS) research and practice. Building upon the sociotechnical paradigm that characterises the IS discipline, this paper utilises concepts of General Systems Theory (GST) to offer a possible formulation of the IS artefact. The IS artefact is conceptualised as a system comprising of interacting social and technical subsystems. Information is a defining and emergent property of the IS artefact system that shapes, and is shaped by, how the social and technical subsystems interact. This conception of the IS artefact leads to theorization on the nature of an IS. The efficacy of the conceptualization is demonstrated by discussing its appropriateness to emerging IS topics such as IT and healthcare and FinTech, as well as its relevance for IT-enabled work in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the third paper, James et al. (2021) use resource exchange theory to examine the types of resources offered as rewards to entice project backers to contribute to crowdfunding projects. The resources contained in 7861 rewards of 1001 Kickstarter projects were coded and analysed to determine which resource types are more likely to result in crowdfunding projects successfully obtaining funding. The value of universalistic resource types is not dependent on the giver and their results show that offering such resource types as crowdfunding rewards increases the chances of funding success. Concrete resources are those that are tangible to exchange partners and they find that offering them as crowdfunding rewards increases the chances of funding success. Their results also indicate that offering more rewards that contain less differentiation in terms of types of resources is advisable. The study's findings offer guidance on how to construct crowdfunding reward portfolios to increase the chances of funding success. In the fourth paper, Ajer et al. (2021), explore the operationalization of Enterprise Architecture (EA) in the Norwegian hospital sector by analysing the evolution of EA projects. Hospitals are complex settings where multiple institutional logics co-exist. The study demonstrates how a distinct EA logic emerges and creates tensions with the existing medical, technical and managerial logics. Based on their analysis, the authors suggest an EA operationalization model. The model shows how the meeting of multiple institutional logics leads to varying degrees of differentiation, or even disassociation, from EA visions during project deliberations. The paper contributes to IS studies on EA implementation by examining EA operationalization in practice. The study provides interesting insights from a Scandinavian context that is conducive to paradoxical tension management. The authors contribute to extant research on project implementation of information systems in institutionally pluralistic settings by providing an account of paradoxical approaches and project leadership arrangements allowing multiple logics to persist.