Improving the peer review process with information technology

Decision Support Systems

Volumn 46, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 29-40

  Mandviwalla, Munir ^a   Patnayakuni, Ravi ^b   Schuff, David ^a  

^a TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA   (United States)

Author keywords

Design science; Peer review; Process improvement; Prototype; Scholarship

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; REVIEWS;

DESIGN SCIENCE; PEER REVIEW; PROCESS IMPROVEMENT; PROTOTYPE; SCHOLARSHIP;

PROCESS ENGINEERING;

EID: 56049094349     PISSN: 01679236     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.dss.2008.04.005     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Apt K.R. One more revolution to make: free scientific publishing. Communications of the ACM 44 5 (2001) 25-28
2. A.G. Bedeian, Peer Review and the Social Construction of Knowledge in the Management Discipline, Academy of Management Learning & Education 3(2) 198-216.
3. Beyer J.M., Chanove R.G., and Fox W.B. The review process and the fates of manuscripts submitted to AMJ. Academy of Management Journal 38 5 (1995) 1219-1261
4. Brown R. The use of double anonymity in peer review: a decision whose time has come?. Quality Assurance 11 2-4 (2005) 103-109
5. Cao J., Crews J.M., Lin M., Deokar A., Burgoon J.K., and Nunamaker J.F. Interactions between system evaluation and theory testing: a demonstration of the power of a multifaceted approach to information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems 22 4 (2006) 207-235
6. Clark H.H., and Brennan S.E. Grounding in communication. In: Resnick L.B., Levine J., and Teasley S.D. (Eds). Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (1991), American Psychological Association, Washington, DC 127-149
7. In: Cummings L.L., and Frost P.J. (Eds). Publishing in the Organizational Sciences. 2nd Edition (1995), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California
8. Davenport T.H., and Short J.E. The new industrial engineering: Information technology and business process redesign. Sloan Management Review 31 4 (1990) 11-27
9. Dressendorfer P.V. Transition to Web-based peer review process for the transactions on nuclear science. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 51 1 (2004) 233
10. Frost P.J., and Taylor R.N. Partisan Perspective: a multiple-level interpretation of the manuscript review process in social science journals. In: Cummings L.L., and Frost P.J. (Eds). Publishing in the Organizational Sciences. 2nd Edition (1995), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California 13-43
11. Gilliland S., and Beckstein B. Procedural and distributive justice in the editorial review process. Personnel Psychology 49 3 (1996) 669-691
12. Gilliland S., and Cortina J. Reviewer and editor decision making in the journal review process. Personnel Psychology 50 (1997) 427-452
13. Habermas J. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (C. Lenhardt and S. W. Nicholsen, Trans.) (1990), MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
14. Harnad S., and Hemus M. All-or-none: no stable hybrid or half-way solutions for launching the learned periodical literature into the post Gutenberg galaxy. In: Butterworth I. (Ed). The Impact of Electronic Publishing on the Academic Community (1997), Portland Press, London 18-27
15. Hevner A.R., March S.T., Park J., and Ram S. Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 28 1 (2004) 77-105
16. Horrobin E.T. Peer review: a philosophically faulty concept which is proving disastrous for science. In: Harnad S. (Ed). Peer commentary on peer review: A case study in scientific control (1982), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom 33-34
17. Kraut R., Galegher J., and Egido C. Relationships and tasks in scientific research collaborations. In: Greif I. (Ed). Computer Supported Cooperative Work: A Book of Readings (1988), Morgan Kauffman, California 741-769
18. Laband D.N. Is there value-added from the review in economics? Preliminary evidence from authors. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 105 2 (1990) 341-352
19. Lee A. Editor's comments. Management Information Systems Quarterly 23 4 (1999) lv-lx
20. March S.T., and Smith G. Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems 15 4 (1995) 251-266
21. McCarty R. Science, politics, and peer review. American Psychologist 57 3 (2002) 198
22. Minton S., and Wellman M.P. JAIR at five. AI Magazine 20 2 (1999) 83-91
23. Nord W.R. Looking at ourselves as we look at others: an exploration of the publication system for organizational research. In: Cummings L.L., and Frost P.J. (Eds). Publishing in the Organizational Sciences. 2nd Edition (1995), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California 64-78
24. Nunamaker J., Chen M., and Purdin T.D.M. Systems Development in information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems 7 3 (1991) 89-106
25. Patton D., and Olin S. Scientific peer review to inform regulatory decision making: leadership responsibilities and cautions. Risk Analysis 26 1 (2006) 5-16
26. Pfeffer J., Leong A., and Strehl K. Paradigm development and particularism: journal publication in three scientific disciplines. Social Forces 55 4 (1977) 938-951
27. Saunders C. From the trenches: thoughts on developmental reviewing. MIS Quarterly 29 2 (2005) iii-xii
28. Schaffner A. The future of scientific journals: lessons from the past. Information Technology and Libraries 13 4 (1994) 239-248
29. Snyder A. Increasing transparency in peer review: members speak out. Journal of Accountancy 198 6 (2004) 22-23
30. D. Te'eni, The language-action perspective as a basis for communication support systems, Communications of the ACM 49(5) 65-70.
31. Walls J., Widmeyer G., and El Sawy O. Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research 3 1 (1992) 36-59
32. Watson R. The academic publication systems: A time for redesign, University of Georgia, Working Paper (2006)
33. R. Weber, The journal review process: a manifesto for change, Communications of the Association for Information Systems 2(12)2-22.
34. Weber R. Retrospection: the MIS quarterly's review processes: 1995-2001. MIS Quarterly 26 2 (2002) v-xi
35. Yalow R. Competency testing for reviewers and editors. In: Harnad S. (Ed). Peer commentary on peer review: A case study in scientific control (1982), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom 60-61