An examination of IS conference reviewing practices
There has been considerable interest over the years within the IS research community into how to shape articles for successful publication. Little effort has been made, however, to examine the reviewing criteria that make a difference to publication. We argue that, to provide better guidance to authors, more solid evidence is needed into the factors that contribute to acceptance decisions. This paper examines empirically the outcomes of the reviewing processes of three well-known IS conferences held in 2007. Our analyses reveal four major findings. First, the evaluation criteria that influence the acceptance/rejection decision vary by conference. Second, those differences can be explained in terms of the maturity and breadth of the specific conference of interest. Third, while objective review criteria influence acceptance/rejection decisions, subjective assessment on the part of the program committees may also play a substantial role. Fourth, while high scores on objective criteria are essential for acceptance, they do not guarantee acceptance. On the other hand, low scores on any criterion are likely to result in rejection.
Impact and interest:
Citation counts are sourced monthly from and citation databases.
Citations counts from theindexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.
|Item Type:||Journal Article|
|Keywords:||editorial practices, HERN, academic research, Reviewing|
|Subjects:||Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > INFORMATION AND COMPUTING SCIENCES (080000) > INFORMATION SYSTEMS (080600) > Information Systems not elsewhere classified (080699)|
|Divisions:||Past > QUT Faculties & Divisions > Faculty of Science and Technology|
|Copyright Owner:||Copyright 2010 [please consult the authors]|
|Deposited On:||05 Apr 2010 22:34|
|Last Modified:||24 Feb 2015 06:03|
Repository Staff Only: item control page