Juhani Ivari’s (2016) suggestions have merit as incremental steps that are directed towards fixing parts of a broken system—a system in which it often takes six to eight months to get an editorial decision on a paper, in which papers are rejected after five years and five rounds of reviews, and in which radically new ideas struggle to be published. Iivari’s suggestions all require the support of journal editors to be effective. These editors are embedded into a system that they have learned to navigate successfully. In fact, they may be too close to the system to make major changes to it. Perhaps people embedded in a review system in which they have been successful will not be able to develop viable solutions to a system that is really broken. Rather, it may be time for a radical change to the IS reviewing system that emanates from a groundswell of IS researchers who are suffering from the problems inherent in the existing malfunctioning system.
"A Rejoinder to Iivari (2016),"
Communications of the Association for Information Systems:
Vol. 38, Article 15.
Available at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol38/iss1/15