The associate editor and senior editor roles in premier IS journals
这篇社论为信息系统期刊的副主编和高级主编提供了全面指南，涵盖从预审筛选到最终决策的整个审稿流程，帮助编辑有效管理论文并做出公正判断。
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 but work with the authors This generally the review process and helps to that papers can be more Managing throughout the process is Some are or They may the knowledge or of the review team in their revision A may that a paper be for a of A may even with the of reviews, especially when a paper is and to the journal or the review In these cases, the SE will the who as an to the authors and in other such as those of the or a deal of trust in the journal to which they the paper, trust that the paper will be assessed and a reasonable period of AEs and SEs are the of that They are the journal's to the even when they are themselves It is that all of the review team their reports in a AEs and reviewers are themselves who will be authors submitting to the journals, so authors as you would to be The and of our colleagues depend on this ideas need to be out in the than so that colleagues can read and take them the of our discipline on you are or a paper, you are good or it is important to be and It that you and the journal you respect and the authors' or not you agree with them. A senior said to one of us if you think that it is a paper, be As an AE or SE, you set the of communication with In a where you can be be It is important to have an AE and SE is indeed the basis of on people being to take on these roles. It provides the opportunity to and have You may have to read other papers to a paper you are you may even have to read about a new topic or If you are you will come a papers that may your points of you you to about a topic you not know We all AEs and SEs many such We the detailed by and on this In this of the ISJ, we papers. In the first paper, et explore the who with guidelines and with on with and they construct a to the that the of as well as its of method of and The makes an important contribution to the by into how such as and can to The authors with an of that they a is that takes a and In the second paper, et to the on there is a that the of research and practice. the that the IS this paper of General to a possible of the IS The IS is as a of and is a and of the IS that and is how the and This of the IS to on the of an The of the is by its to IS topics such as and and as well as its relevance for work in the of the In the paper, et use theory to the of as to to to The in of and to which are more to in The of is not on the and their that such as the of are those that are to and they find that them as the of also indicate that more that less in of of is The on how to construct to the of In the paper, et explore the of in the by the of are complex where The how a logic and with the and on their the authors suggest an The how the meeting of to of or even from The paper to IS studies on by in practice. The provides interesting from a context that is to The authors to research on of in by an account of and to