Navigating the Academic Research Review Process in Information Systems: A Comprehensive Guide

Introduction

The journey from the conception of a research idea to its publication in a reputable journal is often arduous and complex. In the field of Information Systems (IS), this journey involves multiple stages of drafting, revising, and responding to feedback from co-authors, reviewers, and editors. Understanding and effectively navigating the academic research review process is crucial for researchers aiming to contribute valuable knowledge to the field and advance their careers.

This comprehensive guide delves into the intricacies of the academic research review process in Information Systems. It highlights the importance of thorough revisions, strategic planning, and effective communication with all stakeholders involved in the publication process. By providing detailed strategies, practical examples, and best practices, this guide aims to equip researchers—both novice and experienced—with the tools and insights needed to enhance their chances of publication success.

The Importance of Revisions in the Research Process

The Iterative Nature of Writing

Research writing is inherently iterative. From the initial draft to the final submission, a paper can undergo numerous revisions. It is not uncommon for a manuscript to go through at least six or seven major revisions before it is ready for submission. These revisions are critical as they refine the research question, methodology, analysis, and presentation of findings.

Underestimating the Revision Process

Many researchers, especially those new to the field, may not fully appreciate the significance of the revision process. They might focus on completing a draft without considering the extensive work required to polish the manuscript to meet the standards of top-tier journals. Skipping or rushing through revisions can lead to rejection or requests for substantial changes later on.

Planning for Revisions

Effective revision requires a structured approach. Researchers should anticipate multiple rounds of revisions and allocate sufficient time and resources. Collaborating with co-authors, seeking feedback from peers, and being open to constructive criticism are essential components of the revision process.

Types of Revision Situations

Understanding the different scenarios in which revisions occur helps researchers tailor their strategies accordingly. Revisions can be broadly categorized into five situations:

1. Revising a Paper Before Submission

The Pre-Submission Phase

Before a manuscript is submitted to a journal, it should be thoroughly reviewed and revised. This phase involves multiple iterations between the lead author and co-authors. Each co-author acts as a reviewer, providing critical feedback to strengthen the paper.

Strategies for Effective Pre-Submission Revisions

Set Clear Goals: Define what you aim to achieve with each revision, whether it’s refining the argument, improving the methodology, or enhancing clarity.
Solicit Feedback: Share drafts with trusted colleagues or mentors who can provide unbiased feedback.
Presentation and Workshops: Present your work at conferences, seminars, or departmental workshops to gain diverse perspectives.
Use of Tools: Employ reference management software, style guides, and writing tools to ensure consistency and professionalism.

No Formal Response Document Needed

In this phase, while detailed notes and comments are exchanged among co-authors, there is typically no need for a formal response document addressing feedback, as is required during the peer-review process.

2. First-Round Revision for the Same Outlet

Receiving the Initial Decision

Upon submitting the manuscript, the journal’s editorial team and peer reviewers assess it. If the paper is not rejected outright, the authors may receive a “revise and resubmit” decision, often accompanied by extensive feedback.

Importance of the First-Round Revision

The first-round revision is crucial as it sets the tone for subsequent interactions with the journal. Addressing the reviewers’ and editors’ comments thoroughly increases the likelihood of acceptance in later rounds.

Developing a Revision Plan

Comprehensive Analysis: Carefully read all feedback, noting major and minor issues.
Prioritize Comments: Focus on major issues first, especially those highlighted by the Associate Editor (AE) or Senior Editor (SE).
Draft a Revision Plan: Outline how you intend to address each comment. This plan can be shared with the editors for preliminary approval.
Set Internal Deadlines: Allocate time for each revision task to ensure timely resubmission.

3. Later-Round Revision for the Same Outlet

Deeper Refinement

In later rounds, the feedback becomes more specific. The focus shifts from major structural changes to refining arguments, clarifying points, and ensuring coherence throughout the manuscript.

Strategies for Later-Round Revisions

Maintain Consistency: Ensure that changes made in one section do not conflict with other parts of the paper.
Attention to Detail: Address every minor comment meticulously, as small issues can impact the overall impression.
Communicate Clearly: Keep the editors informed of any significant changes or challenges encountered during revision.

4. Revising for a Different Top-Tier Journal

Deciding to Switch Outlets

Sometimes, despite significant effort, a paper may not be accepted by the initial journal. Authors may then choose to revise the manuscript for submission to a different top-tier journal.

Adjusting to a New Audience

Re-evaluate Fit: Assess how the manuscript aligns with the new journal’s scope and audience.
Modify Content: Adjust the framing, theoretical positioning, and literature review to suit the new outlet.
Adhere to Guidelines: Ensure the manuscript meets the formatting and submission requirements of the new journal.

Balancing Workload and Priorities

Strategic Decision: Consider the time and effort required for substantial revisions versus the potential benefits.
Career Considerations: Align the decision with your career goals, institutional expectations, and the value placed on different journals.

5. Revising for a Lower-Level Outlet

Reasons for Choosing a Lower-Level Journal

Time Constraints: Limited time to undertake extensive revisions.
Data Limitations: Inability to collect additional data or conduct more complex analyses.
Publication Requirements: Need to meet quantity-focused publication metrics.

Adapting the Manuscript

Simplify Complexities: Streamline arguments and focus on the core contributions.
Reduce Length: Shorten the manuscript to meet the length requirements of the target journal.
Adjust Writing Style: Tailor the language and presentation to suit a broader or different audience.

Factors Influencing Journal Selection

Selecting the appropriate journal is a strategic decision influenced by various factors:

Community and Audience

Disciplinary Alignment: Ensure the journal’s focus aligns with your research area.
Collaborative Considerations: When working with co-authors from different disciplines, choose a journal that caters to the interdisciplinary nature of the work.

Institutional Expectations

Promotion and Tenure Requirements: Understand your institution’s criteria for publication outlets.
Journal Rankings: Be aware of lists like the Financial Times 50 or UT Dallas Top 24, which may influence how your publications are valued.
Departmental Culture: Consider the perspectives of senior faculty and the potential impact on departmental standards.

Career Stage

Early-Career Researchers: Focus on publishing in top-tier journals to establish credibility and reputation.
Established Scholars: Balance between high-impact publications and contributing to a wider array of journals.

Research Goals and Priorities

Impact vs. Reach: Decide whether you aim for a high-impact journal with a narrower audience or a journal with broader reach but potentially lower prestige.
Time Investment: Assess the time you can commit to revisions and the likelihood of acceptance.

Practical Examples

Case of Dr. Aman Jayaraj: A researcher who published in a top-tier journal faced unexpected pushback from colleagues concerned about raised expectations.
Faculty at University of Memphis: A decision to forego extensive revisions for a top journal in favor of a timely publication in a journal considered equivalent by the institution.

General Approach to Revisions

A systematic approach to revisions enhances efficiency and effectiveness:

1. Identify Major Issues First

Thorough Review: Read all feedback carefully, identifying key concerns.
Categorize Feedback: Separate comments into major and minor issues.
Understand the Underlying Concerns: Look beyond the surface to grasp the reviewers’ fundamental questions or doubts.

2. Develop a Strategy for Addressing Major Issues

Collaborative Planning: Discuss with co-authors to align on the revision strategy.
Feasibility Assessment: Determine what is achievable within the revision timeline.
Prioritize Changes: Focus on changes that significantly improve the paper’s quality and address critical feedback.

3. Execute the Strategy

Allocate Tasks: Assign specific revision tasks to co-authors based on expertise.
Set Milestones: Establish internal deadlines to track progress.
Monitor Consistency: Ensure that revisions in one section do not contradict other parts of the manuscript.

4. Work on the Manuscript and Response Document in Parallel

Integrated Approach: As you make changes in the manuscript, document how you addressed each comment.
Version Control: Keep track of different drafts to avoid confusion.
Regular Updates: Share progress with co-authors to stay aligned.

5. Address Minor Issues Last

Final Polishing: Once major revisions are complete, tackle minor comments.
Proofreading: Check for grammar, punctuation, and formatting errors.
Reference Checks: Ensure all citations are accurate and properly formatted.

Prioritizing Reviewer and Editor Comments

Understanding the hierarchy and significance of feedback is crucial:

1. Senior Editor (SE) and Associate Editor (AE) Comments

Primary Decision-Makers: SE and AE have significant influence over the publication outcome.
Directives and Recommendations: Pay close attention to any specific instructions or expectations they outline.
Strategic Compliance: Align your revisions closely with their guidance.

2. Repeated Concerns

Consensus Indicators: Issues raised by multiple reviewers signal areas that need serious attention.
Priority Treatment: Address these concerns comprehensively to demonstrate responsiveness.

3. Reviewer Comments

Assess Each Comment: Determine the validity and impact of each point.
Balance Responses: While major comments require detailed responses, minor comments should not be neglected.
Respectful Engagement: Even if you disagree, respond politely and provide justification.

4. Balancing Conflicting Feedback

Identify Conflicts: Note where reviewers’ comments contradict each other.
Consult the AE/SE: In your response, explain the conflict and seek guidance if necessary.
Justify Your Choices: Provide clear reasoning for the approach you choose to take.

Practical Tip

Cross-Referencing: In your response document, link related comments from different reviewers to show you’ve considered all perspectives.

Preparing the Response Document

The response document is a critical communication tool in the revision process.

1. Structure and Organization

Use a Clear Format

Table Format: Organize the document into a table with columns for comment IDs, the original comment, and your response.
Consistent Referencing: Number comments sequentially and maintain consistency throughout the document.

Include All Comments

Positive Feedback: Include compliments or acknowledgments to remind reviewers of their initial positive impressions.
Every Point Matters: Address each comment, even if it seems minor or redundant.

Avoid Redundancy

Consolidate Responses: If multiple comments address the same issue, provide a comprehensive response and refer back to it when necessary.
Efficiency: Keep the document manageable in length while ensuring completeness.

2. Tone and Language

Professional and Respectful

Courteous Tone: Use polite language, expressing appreciation for the feedback.
Avoid Defensiveness: Even when disagreeing, present your points calmly and logically.

Use Direct Address

Personalization: Use “you” to engage directly with the commenter.
Clarity: Be straightforward in your responses, avoiding ambiguous language.

Express Gratitude

Acknowledgment: Start your responses by thanking the reviewer for their specific comments.
Positive Framing: Highlight how the feedback has improved your manuscript.

3. Detailed Responses

Be Specific

Direct Reference: Point to exact sections, pages, or lines where changes were made.
Evidence-Based: Support your responses with data, analysis, or references as appropriate.

Provide Explanations

Clarifications: If a misunderstanding occurred, clarify without assigning blame.
Alternative Solutions: If you cannot implement a suggestion, propose a feasible alternative.

Use Visual Aids

Tables and Figures: Include relevant excerpts or visuals in the response to illustrate your points.
Appendices: Reference supplementary materials when necessary.

4. Highlighting Major Revisions

Summary of Changes

Overview: Begin the document with a summary of the key changes made.
Alignment with Feedback: Show how the revisions address the major concerns raised.

Reference to Revision Plan

Mention Approval: If a revision plan was submitted and approved, note this in your responses.
Consistency: Ensure that your revisions align with what was proposed in the plan.

Example of a Response Entry

Comment (Reviewer 2, Comment 3):

“The theoretical framework lacks clarity, particularly in how constructs A and B interact. Additional elaboration is needed.”

Response:

“Thank you for highlighting the need for greater clarity in our theoretical framework. In response, we have:

Elaborated on the Interaction Between Constructs A and B: On pages 10-12, we have added a detailed explanation of how A influences B, supported by recent literature (Smith et al., 2021).
Included a New Figure: Figure 2 on page 11 visually represents the relationship, enhancing understanding.
Revised the Hypotheses: We have refined Hypotheses 2 and 3 to reflect the clarified interaction.

We believe these additions strengthen the theoretical foundation of our study.”

Submitting a Revision Plan

A revision plan is a proactive way to align your revisions with the editors’ expectations.

1. Benefits of a Revision Plan

Editor Buy-In

Preliminary Approval: Securing the SE’s and AE’s agreement on your proposed revisions increases the likelihood of acceptance.
Demonstrates Proactivity: Shows that you are taking the feedback seriously and are committed to improving the manuscript.

Clarify Your Approach

Avoid Misalignment: Ensures that your understanding of the comments aligns with the editors’ intentions.
Focus Your Efforts: Helps prioritize revisions that are most critical to the publication decision.

Avoid Wasted Effort

Efficiency: Prevents spending time on revisions that may not meet the editors’ expectations.
Risk Mitigation: Reduces the chance of misunderstandings leading to rejection in later rounds.

2. Preparing the Revision Plan

Timeliness

Prompt Submission: Aim to submit the plan within two months of receiving the decision.
Respect Deadlines: Ensure there is ample time to receive feedback and complete the revisions.

Feasibility

Realistic Commitments: Only propose revisions that are achievable within the given timeframe and with available resources.
Preliminary Testing: Conduct initial analyses to confirm that proposed changes will yield positive results.

Detail

Specificity: Outline exactly what changes you will make, referencing specific sections and proposed additions or deletions.
Clarity: Use clear language to prevent misunderstandings.
Professional Format: Present the plan formally, similar to a proposal.

3. Referencing the Revision Plan

In the Response Document

Acknowledgment: Mention that a revision plan was submitted and approved.
Alignment: Highlight how your revisions correspond to the plan.

Strategic Placement

SE and AE Responses: Reference the plan in your responses to the editors.
Reviewer Responses: Where appropriate, mention the plan to reinforce your commitment and the editors’ support.

Examples and Practical Advice

1. Addressing Reviewer Comments

Comprehensive Responses

Example: If a reviewer questions your methodology, provide a detailed explanation, referencing methodological literature and explaining any choices made.

Handling Misunderstandings

Example: If a reviewer missed a point already addressed, politely point them to the specific section. “As you suggested, we have clarified this point. Please see page 15, where we have expanded the discussion.”

Implementing Easy Fixes

Example: If a reviewer requests additional references, and they strengthen your paper, include them. Even if you believe it’s unnecessary, accommodating reasonable requests can be beneficial.

2. Dealing with Conflicting Feedback

Prioritize Editors’ Guidance

Example: If one reviewer suggests adding a section while another suggests removing it, consider the AE’s stance. If the AE emphasizes one over the other, follow their lead.

Explain Your Decisions

Example: “While Reviewer 1 suggests adding more on X, we have chosen to focus on Y due to space constraints and the paper’s scope, as discussed with the AE.”

3. Best Practices for Manuscript Preparation

Use Styles in Word

Consistency: Styles ensure uniform formatting for headings, subheadings, and text.
Efficiency: Easily modify formatting to meet different journal requirements.

Keep Tables and Figures in the Main Document

Avoid Errors: Reduces the risk of mismatches between text and visuals.
Ease of Review: Facilitates smoother reading for co-authors and reviewers.

Proofread Before Sharing

Professionalism: Sending a clean draft shows respect for your co-authors’ time.
Focus on Content: Allows reviewers to concentrate on substantive issues rather than being distracted by errors.

Reference Management Software

Accuracy: Tools like Mendeley or Zotero ensure citations are correctly formatted.
Organization: Easily manage and update references as you revise.

4. Writing Order and Workflow

Start with Data and Results

Foundation First: Having solid results informs the introduction and discussion.
Clarity: Helps avoid misalignment between proposed contributions and actual findings.

Customize Your Process

Flexibility: Adapt your workflow to what works best for you.
Tools: Utilize software like Scrivener for drafting and OmniGraffle for visual mapping.

Mind Mapping and Outlining

Organization: Visual tools help structure your thoughts and the paper’s flow.
Collaboration: Sharing outlines with co-authors ensures everyone is aligned.

5. Managing Co-Author Contributions

Clear Communication

Roles and Responsibilities: Define who is responsible for each part of the revision.
Regular Meetings: Schedule check-ins to discuss progress and address challenges.

Version Control

Document Management: Use tools like Google Docs or version control software to track changes.
Change Logs: Keep records of major changes for reference.

Conflict Resolution

Open Discussion: Address disagreements respectfully, focusing on the paper’s best interest.
Consensus Building: Strive for solutions that satisfy all parties.

Conclusion

Navigating the academic research review process in Information Systems is a multifaceted endeavor requiring strategic planning, meticulous attention to detail, and effective communication. By understanding the different revision scenarios, prioritizing feedback, and adopting best practices in manuscript preparation and response drafting, researchers can significantly enhance their chances of publication success.

Key takeaways include:

Embrace the Iterative Nature of Writing: Anticipate multiple revisions and plan accordingly.
Strategically Select Journals: Align your submission choices with your research goals and institutional expectations.
Prioritize Major Issues: Focus on addressing the most critical feedback first.
Prepare Detailed Response Documents: Communicate your revisions clearly and professionally.
Consider Submitting a Revision Plan: Engage proactively with editors to align your efforts with their expectations.
Utilize Tools and Best Practices: Leverage software and workflows that enhance efficiency and quality.

Ultimately, the revision process is an opportunity to improve your research and contribute meaningful knowledge to the field of Information Systems. By approaching it thoughtfully and strategically, you position yourself for success in the competitive landscape of academic publishing.