The key criterion for publication in MISQE is whether a paper provides new insights for Information Systems (IS) and business professionals engaged in IS decision making. Unlike the typical review process of academic journals, MISQE authors will rarely engage in a long, multi-round, incremental process. While MISQE reviews are developmental and seek to tangibly improve the paper, they typically strive for fast convergence to a publishable contribution. All papers are quickly screened by the Editor in Chief and sent to Senior Editors only when there is the potential for rapid progress. Given the value of timeliness in practice-oriented research, lengthy review process are not be the norm. MISQE copy edits papers to improve readability and fit with the unique style of the journal.
Nominating Editors and Reviewers
Authors should select the Senior Editor they wish to handle their paper and nominate a suitable backup. Note that the Editor-in-Chief may also can play the role of a SE in this process. Authors may also nominate possible reviewers, usually, but not always, selected from among the Editorial Board. If you choose to nominate someone who is not on the Editorial Board, please provide his or her e-mail address.
The nominees for SE and reviewers must have no conflict of interest with any of the authors of the paper being submitted. A conflict of interest includes, but is not limited to, situations where the nominee is any of the following:
- An author's student or former student.
- An author's academic advisor or former advisor.
- Someone who has co-authored with an author during the past five years.
- Someone located at the same institution as an author at the time of the paper's submission.
The review process is as follows:
- Every submission will be screened for review readiness by the Editor in Chief and, if assigned by the Senior Editor (SE).
- After passing the screening, the submission will go to at least (but generally, no more than) two members of the Editorial Board who will serve as reviewers. They, in turn, can seek outside persons to be additional reviewers, but we expect this option to be used very rarely.
- The review process is typically single-blind.
- Authors can expect one document, from the SE, summarizing the consensus of the review team based on a meeting of the review panel. This is in contrast to a typical review packet from academic journals where authors received separate reviews from each panel member. Such consensus-based reviews are, in our experience, easier to understand and faster to implement.
In reviewing a submission, we consider the extent to which it:
- Provides insight (deeper understanding), rather than just description or just prescription, for both CIO and researchers in the field
- Offer timely, actionable and clear recommendations to the thoughtful CIO or current and future IS leaders
- Deals with management and use of Information Systems
- Is based on rigorous research
- Has the potential to influence practice
- Provides added value from our academic perspectives
- Is clearly written in an engaging style
Authors are encouraged to read recent editorials that offer further guidance:
- Piccoli, Gabriele (2019) "Editors’ Comments," MIS Quarterly Executive: Vol. 18: Iss. 1, Article 1. Available at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/misqe/vol18/iss1/1
- Piccoli, Gabriele (2019) "Editor's Comments," MIS Quarterly Executive: Vol. 18: Iss. 2, Article 1. Available at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/misqe/vol18/iss2/1
- Piccoli, Gabriele (2019) "Editors’ Comments," MIS Quarterly Executive: Vol. 18: Iss. 3, Article 1. Available at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/misqe/vol18/iss3/1
- Piccoli, Gabriele (2020) "Editors’ Comments," MIS Quarterly Executive: Vol. 19: Iss. 1, Article 1. Available at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/misqe/vol19/iss1/1