The key criterion for publication in MISQE is whether a paper provides new insights for IT and business professionals engaged in IT decision making. Unlike the MIS Quarterly review process, the MISQE review process will rarely engage authors in a long developmental process. The MISQE review process will typically involve an accept/reject decision or a single revision prior to an accept/reject decision. Lengthy, "value added" reviews will not be the norm. MISQE may copy edit papers to improve readability as needed.
Nominating Editors and Reviewers
Authors should select the Senior Editor they wish to handle their paper. Note that the Editor-in-Chief may also play the role of a senior editor 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 senior editor 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 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.
- Authors may request (subject to the approval of the SE) either a review process that is double blind (so that the reviewers and authors do not know each other's identities) or a review process in which the names of the authors are Open to the reviewers (but not vice versa).
- Generally, we expect a quick up or down decision (i.e., accept or reject), where the SE would normally go along with the consensus (if there is one) reached by the Editorial Board members who are the reviewers. If desired, the Editorial Board members can discuss their reactions to a manuscript and write a single, joint recommendation.
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
- Is relevant to the thoughtful CIO
- Deals with management and use of IT
- Is based on academic research
- Has the potential to influence practice
- Provides added value from our academic perspectives
- Is exquisitely written