Editorial‐The Art of Constructive Reviewing
Robert M. Davison · Information Systems Journal · 2015
In my previous editorial (Davison, 2014), I discussed problems associated with bias in the review process, as well as some mitigation options. In this editorial, I return to the review process but this time examine the art and practice of constructive reviewing. By constructive reviewing (sometimes referred to as developmental reviewing), I am referring to the process of reviewers providing feedback that helps authors to develop their paper. Constructive reviewing is very much a key aspect of our editorial philosophy at the ISJ. We provide feedback to all reviewers so that each reviewer can see how others tackled the review and how a decision was reached. Reviewing provides valuable insights into how others write and thus contributes to one's own writing. Reviewing was also, tangentially, a topic raised in the ISWORLD mailing list earlier this year, along the lines of: the review process can be any two (but not all three) of: cheap, quick and good. Given that the ISJ, like many journals, does not pay its reviewers (though we do offer free access to Wiley's digital library), the issue of cost is essentially taken care of: the reviews are delivered for free. However, speed and quality are worthy of more careful attention, not least because they are prime components of constructive reviews. At the ISJ, we work with reviewers to ensure that delays are minimized. If a reviewer commits to complete a review within a fixed time frame, then we sincerely hope (and expect) that it will be delivered on time. If a reviewer needs an extension, then this can be arranged but not ad infinitum. If necessary new reviewers are sought and the overdue reviewers are recused. As a point of fact, the average time for an original manuscript submitted to the ISJ between its submission and first decision was 89 days in 2013 and 73 days in 2014. Much has been written previously about how to write good/constructive reviews (Lee, 1995; Davison et al., 2005; Hill & McKinley, 2005), and there is no need to repeat all this excellent advice here. However, it is worth highlighting that constructive reviews list both the strengths and weaknesses of manuscripts, are persuasive and polite, and eschew personal bias or preference for or against a particular method, theory or technique. To this I would add the notion that a constructive reviewer will act as a discussant, seeking to engage with the author in an intellectual conversation about the paper, listening to the author's point of view, pointing out different perspectives and so identifying constructive criticisms that help the author ameliorate the paper (Davison, 2003). AEs play a key role in overseeing the review process for they must adjudicate between reviewers who may have conflicting views, no matter how politely or constructively they are expressed. The principle of being constructive means that it is not acceptable for an author to receive a review packet that contains two to three divergent perspectives if there is no sense of direction from the AE about how the revision should proceed or upon which aspects of which reviews the authors should focus their attention. Simply telling authors to ‘do everything’ when the various review components are mutually exclusive is neither constructive nor reasonable. At the ISJ, we firmly believe that a constructive review process will result in shorter review cycles with higher chances of papers being accepted for publication. Constructive reviewing is thus an antecedent of quick publication. Of course, it is easier to write about the merits of constructive reviewing than to ensure that it occurs. We appeal to reviewers to be constructive (and on time) by suggesting that when they are authors they surely appreciate constructive and timely reviews that facilitate the improvement of their own papers. Constructive reviewing is an art, not a science. It requires a strong human touch, for it is a form of human–human communication, even if mediated by technology. Constructive reviews are high quality and delivered on time. They are also freely offered in a spirit of shared intellectual enquiry. In this issue of the ISJ, we present four papers. The first paper, Lowry & Moody (2015), ‘Proposing the control-reactance compliance model (CRCM) to explain opposing motivations to comply with organizational information security policies’, is especially timely for those who are interested in the growing problem of organizational security. It turns out that nearly half of the organizational security breaches that occur come from organizational insiders and these breaches tend to be more expensive than when they involve external attacks (e.g. hackers). The reason for this disparity is that insiders can best commit fraud, embezzlement, insider training, confidential breaches, theft of intellectual property and so on. The key problem, however, is that recent research in ISJ, and elsewhere, has shown that organizational approaches such as information security policies (ISPs) can easily backfire if employees feel the approaches are unjust, unfair or heavy-handed (Lowry et al., 2015). The present article builds on this foundation to explain that in implementing new organizational ISPs, employees often deal with dual-competing motivations to either comply with the ISPs or react negatively to them through a novel construct called, reactance, which builds on reactance theory. In testing their novel model, the control-reactance compliance model, with over 300 working professionals, they show that the key factors to predict employees negatively reacting to new ISPs are (1) having a personal disposition to react negatively against changes and (2) the degree to which the new ISP is perceived to threaten an employee's freedom. These findings, along with other outcomes, can be leveraged to help organizations better understand how to effective create, manage and communicate about new ISPs: to turn insiders into security allies, as opposed to security liabilities. Despite the large interest in social media research, the emerging meaning of online social networking in organizations for its participating actors has rarely been the focus of academic attention yet. To address this gap, Trier & Richter (2015) unfold a qualitative inquiry into ‘The deep structure of organizational online networking’ in a global company. Their paper offers a systematic approach to study organizational online networking on four interwoven levels: A context of organizational order principles (1) influences emerging actor identities and relationship meanings (2), which bring about transactions (3) that eventually surface as network structures (4). The study reveals unbalanced and maturing organizational online relationships, in which uneven contribution behaviour is naturally sustained via the two complementing and interdependent roles of discourse drivers and information retrievers. The observed emphasis on information supports the theory of transactive memory systems as a potent explanation of evolving interaction structures and actor motivations in organizations. The study challenges current interpretations of network configurations, such as actor centrality and tie strength. Based on the improved insights about how organizational online networks form and sustain, practitioners can better guide interventions and identify value drivers for relevant stakeholders. In the third paper, Deng et al. (2015) investigate the behaviour of IS professionals in their interactions with their business counterparts in support of their on-going use of two systems over three post-implementation periods. This is an important topic because IS professionals can be an important knowledge source for their business colleagues who seek assistance when using information systems post-implementation. The authors apply a customer-oriented behaviour perspective in considering the role IS professionals play. Through an analysis of 630 support tasks and by conducting interviews with IS support personnel, the authors both reveal five different types of customer-oriented citizenship behaviour and establish how such behaviours varied by four contextual factors of IS support. The results enhance our understanding of the knowledge-intensive work of IS professionals more generally, and more specifically in relation to this important but oft-neglected role in IS research. The last paper, ‘Managing E-Government: Value Positions and Relationships’, by Rose et al., 2015 examines the values of public sector managers through a lens derived from major traditions in the public administration literature. Their investigation of the values of Danish local authority managers in relation to e-government reveals a complex pattern of value positions reflecting the ideals of professionalism, efficiency, service, and engagement. These positions guide their e-government initiatives, but not in any simple way. Values can easily be in conflict with each other; for example efficiency (interpreted as saving money) can easily be in conflict with the service ideal (where service improvements usually cost money). This results in many trade-offs and compromises that may have significant consequences for the initiatives that the managers organize. The interpretive study results in a theoretical model that delineates value positions and their relationships in the managers' work, and the article outlines the major implications for researchers and practitioners in focusing successful e-Government initiatives.