What is published in our journals cannot change unless we do
European Journal of Information Systems (2009) 18, 189–191. doi:10.1057/ejis.2009.21 What is published in our journals? Complaints I have just come back from a conference where there was a ‘Meet the Editors’ Panel’. At the end of the meeting there was a discussion session, which showed some widespread lack of understanding about the process of getting an author’s paper published. This is in spite of my article four years ago that went into the issue quite thoroughly (Paul, 2005). The reader is recommended to visit this article if it has not been read yet. I have also experienced some fairly robust comments from rejected authors, which give me the impression that talking about getting a paper published would be worthwhile. Hence this editorial. First though, an unhelpful view of publishing is to distinguish editors and their teams from authors. It is as if the former came down from Mars, and as alien life forms were making life difficult for the latter. In reality, we are all part of the same community, from which some of us have been selected, or volunteered, or through some other democratic selection process, have taken on these review roles. So, if we as a community do not like anything about what is published in our subject, then it is up to all of us to do something about it, not just editors. For example: Complaint: it takes too long to get a paper into print, sometimes three or more years. Responses:
Editor's View: an opportunity for editors of IS journals to relate their experiences and offer advice. The Editorial View of Ray J Paul. First in a series
This opinion paper discusses the objectives of this series of Editor's Views and introduces this particular view, the first in the series. After reminding readers of the objectives of this journal, the European Journal of Information Systems, some experiences concerning the range of submissions the Journal receives are presented. Based on these experiences, some advice is offered to help prospective authors improve their chance of being accepted by the Journal. How the advice impacts on the review process is next described to assist prospective authors in determining the suitability and acceptability of a planned submission. The paper ends with planned improvements to the journal, and how authors can help the European Journal of Information Systems continue its successful progress as one of the leading IS journals.
An Editor's Values
European Journal of Information Systems (2004) 13, 1–2. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000488 I am grateful for the opportunity to use this editorial to introduce myself as your newest co-editor of the European Journal of Information Systems. Rather than recite my CV, perhaps you would find it more interesting to know something about my values as an editor and a scholar. Among these values I would first highlight a love of diversity. We draw our most valuable lessons from encounters with ‘new and different’ experiences. This value probably comes to me because I have lived in four different countries and thoroughly enjoyed each different culture. I am grateful to have been raised in North America and educated in Europe. I treasure viewpoints that contribute to a discourse that is international, multicultural, and varied in philosophy and methodology. Diversity leads us through disagreements, and disagreements lead us to learning. While it may be unnecessary for our authors to adopt such a diversified viewpoint, it is important for our journal editors to have such values. It is the mission of most academic journals to disseminate knowledge. Research journals in particular should focus on newly created knowledge. Consequently, the contribution of each article deserves close scrutiny. Each author must have something new and different to say about information systems (or at least to explain existing knowledge in a refreshing and different way). My thinking about the characteristics of a ‘substantial contribution’ is shaped by an article from Murray Davis published in 1971 in the first volume of the Philosophy of Social Science entitled ‘That’s Interesting!’ Drawing on Davis, the most interesting contributions are those that deny certain assumptions of the audience, and the non-interesting contributions are those that confirm certain assumptions of the audience. While this is not the only measure of academic or practical contribution, it does lead an author to ask, ‘What will my reader do differently, day-to-day, after reading my article?’ Journal readers expect to learn from reading each article, and it is important for our editors to keep such rewards in mind for our readers. It is also the objective of editors to publish research findings. Rejection of papers submitted for publication is not the objective. However, this aim does not remove the editorial obligation to select the highest quality submissions available to the journal. Thus we have a high-quality process for vetting and peer-reviewing articles. My understanding of this process is coloured by Berger and Luckmann’s famous treatise on the institutionalisation and sociology of knowledge. I believe these review panels do not relieve the editors of the responsibility for courageous decisions when the occasion arises. The academic review process can sometimes be biased toward the status quo. Revolutionary discoveries are necessarily refereed by scholars who may have substantially invested in the conventional wisdom being overturned. Controversial discoveries inevitably lead to disagreements among the members of the review panels. Thus editorial courage is required not only in selecting the best reviewers but also in making appropriate publication decisions that are usually, but not invariably, the direct consequence of the consensus of the review panel. European Journal of Information Systems (2004) 13, 1–2 & 2004 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. All rights reserved 0960-085X/04 $25.00