Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
14.1 weeks
14.1 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
Despite some grounded and constructive comments from another reviewer, one reviewer only criticized English language issues. It is a bit harsh but within a reasonable scope.
One reviewer only picked up minor, addressable issues, and had a very subjective view, ambiguous critics on the material in our experiment. They also said JMIS no longer publishes papers with PLS, but it was never claimed on the journal website, and they had still published an article using PLS in 2014 (and maybe more recent as I have not found yet).
PLS has its weaknesses as a data analysis method (like many other methods), but it is not a generally rejected method, and thus should not be a reason. In another IS FT50 journal, I found a good number of papers talking about PLS. If JMIS is going to reject all papers using PLS, they should at least state it on the website, and clearly explain why they do so. If they had ground to do so, they should have offered some articles to support themselves, which they did not.
Overall speaking, the editorial board failed to demonstrate fairness on handling submission. Maybe the non-adoption of contemporary manuscript submission system has been offering the board an excellent space to control.
One reviewer only picked up minor, addressable issues, and had a very subjective view, ambiguous critics on the material in our experiment. They also said JMIS no longer publishes papers with PLS, but it was never claimed on the journal website, and they had still published an article using PLS in 2014 (and maybe more recent as I have not found yet).
PLS has its weaknesses as a data analysis method (like many other methods), but it is not a generally rejected method, and thus should not be a reason. In another IS FT50 journal, I found a good number of papers talking about PLS. If JMIS is going to reject all papers using PLS, they should at least state it on the website, and clearly explain why they do so. If they had ground to do so, they should have offered some articles to support themselves, which they did not.
Overall speaking, the editorial board failed to demonstrate fairness on handling submission. Maybe the non-adoption of contemporary manuscript submission system has been offering the board an excellent space to control.
n/a
n/a
1 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2019
Motivation:
The only line written was "We have received your paper. However, it is not suitable for JMIS and should be submitted elsewhere.".
From my point of view, an EIC should justify his editorial decision, offer constructive feedback and criticism, and be open to diversified background of authors. I do not think the EIC of JMIS have illustrated any of this.
From my point of view, an EIC should justify his editorial decision, offer constructive feedback and criticism, and be open to diversified background of authors. I do not think the EIC of JMIS have illustrated any of this.