Author Responsibilities in Improving the Quality of Peer Reviews: A Rejoinder to Iivari (2016)

In this rejoinder to Iivari (2016), I discuss authors’ responsibilities in the process of ensuring quality reviews. I argue that one overlooked element in quality peer reviewing is authors’ unconstrained right to submit manuscripts in whatever form or quality they desire. As such, I suggest adding some constraints and offering more freedom to reviewers to maintain viability of the scholarly publication system. I offer three responses to Iivari’s suggestions and add two further suggestions for change.

[1]  Paul Benjamin Lowry,et al.  Profiling the Research Productivity of Tenured Information Systems Faculty at U.S. Institutions , 2011, MIS Q..

[2]  Carol Saunders,et al.  Editor's comments: looking for diamond cutters , 2005 .

[3]  Ron Weber,et al.  Like ships passing in the night: the debate on the core of the information systems discipline , 2006 .

[4]  Donald E. Hardaway,et al.  Open Knowledge Creation: Bringing Transparency and Inclusiveness to the Peer Review Process , 2012, MIS Q..

[5]  Richard T. Watson,et al.  How Shall We Manage Our Journals in the Future? A Discussion of Richard T. Watson's Proposals at ICIS 2004 , 2006, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[6]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Nothing At The Center?: Academic Legitimacy in the Information Systems Field , 2004, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[7]  Mark A. Fuller,et al.  Research Standards for Promotion and Tenure in Information Systems , 2006, MIS Q..

[8]  Thomas H. Davenport,et al.  Rigor vs. relevance revisited: response to Benbasat and Zmud , 1999 .

[9]  Ron Weber,et al.  The Journal Review Process: A Manifesto for Change , 1999, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[10]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  How to Improve the Quality of Peer Reviews? Three Suggestions for System-level Changes , 2016, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[11]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  Beyond Rigor and Relevance: Producing Consumable Research about Information Systems , 1998 .

[12]  M. Rosemann,et al.  Rigour versus relevance revisited: evidence from IS conference reviewing practice , 2009 .

[13]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Editor's Comments: Diamond Mining or Coal Mining? Which Reviewing Industry Are We in? , 2009 .

[14]  L. Bornmann,et al.  The Usefulness of Peer Review for Selecting Manuscripts for Publication: A Utility Analysis Taking as an Example a High-Impact Journal , 2010, PloS one.

[15]  Allen S. Lee.  Reviewing a manuscript for publication , 1995 .

[16]  Shirley Gregor,et al.  Publication Productivity in Information Systems 2003-2007: A Focus on the 'Basket of Six' and the Pacific Asia Region , 2009, Pac. Asia J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[17]  Jan Recker,et al.  An Examination of IS Conference Reviewing Practices , 2010, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[18]  Kevin Crowston.  Rejoinder to Open Access: The Whipping Boy for Problems in Scholarly Publishing , 2015, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[19]  Anna Sidorova,et al.  Uncovering the Intellectual Core of the Information Systems Discipline , 2008, MIS Q..