From the trenches: thoughts on developmental reviewing.(EDITOR'S COMMENTS)(Interview)

Developmental reviewing is more of an art than it is a science. In this editorial, I have asked some master artisans to share with you their tricks of the reviewing trade. Because each person on the editorial team performs a different role, I asked for input from a Senior Editor (SE), an Associate Editor (AE), and a Reviewer. It was a challenge to decide whom I should ask to help me write this editorial since I have worked with and learned from so many excellent senior editors, associate editors, and reviewers. I asked Cynthia Beath to provide the perspective of a Senior Editor. She has served or is serving in many editorial positions, including Senior Editor of MIS Quarterly and Information Systems Research. The Associate Editor and Reviewer perspectives are provided by Ulrike Schultze and Paul Pavlou, respectively. Ulrike Schultze just ended her tenure as Associate Editor at MIS Quarterly. Both she and Paul Pavlou have been recognized as MISQ reviewers of the year.

It should be clear from Cynthia's, Ulrike's, and Paul's comments below that working with authors to help them develop their research and shape it into a publishable article is hard, challenging work, especially since authors often unwittingly obfuscate the contribution of their research. I don't think these efforts of the review team should go unrecognized. Although Paul suggested the novel approach of adopting the coauthor's hat when preparing reviews, he quite appropriately did not suggest adding the names of reviewers to the coauthor list. However, starting with the September issue, MIS Quarterly will list the names of reviewers and the Associate Editor, as well as that of the Senior Editor, for each paper that is published. Reviewers and Associate Editors may choose not to have their names published. While not everyone wants the recognition, I think it is important to provide an avenue to recognize the time and effort that each member of the review team has devoted to developing the paper. I view this as one way, albeit limited, of thanking team members for their important contributions to the article, journal, and discipline.

Cynthia Beath, Professor Emerita, University of Texas at Austin: A Senior Editor's Perspective

Carol asked me to respond to two questions: How do you go about writing good developmental SE letters? What are the characteristics of a developmental AE report? I've agonized over my answers to these questions for months, because I regret that more of my SE work has not been more developmental. I have learned most of what I know from those who served as SE or AE on my papers or my SE/AE colleagues. Unfortunately, I've also learned a lot by trial and error (my apologies to the authors whose papers were rejected or not resubmitted because of my errors). With respect to the AE report, I must confess that what I've written here is very idealistic. But I expect that is what Carol was after. Here are my answers.

How do you go about writing good developmental SE letters?

I assume this question is oriented toward understanding my "SE process," but let me start by saying a little about what my developmental goals are as an SE. While there are a number of "upstream" research capabilities behind any manuscript that sometimes need development--like capabilities to plan and execute a research project, to succinctly leverage existing literature, to theorize, and to collect and analyze evidence--I tend to focus on the development of the capability that is the most proximal to the paper: the ability to write. A paper is a tangible product of the authors' collective research capabilities, but the inability to write well often stands between a great new insight and a publication. So my developmental goal as an SE is to help authors write better papers. Better papers will be more correctly understood and leveraged by others, they will be more widely and carefully read, and they will have more impact on the field.

Of course, I agree with those who argue that writing and thinking are really the same thing. I suppose I am trying to help authors improve their thinking, but there is a certain neutrality in focusing on writing that seems to help authors listen and hear what we have to say. It is so much more constructive to ask, "What does this paragraph say?" than, "Whatever in the world could you have been thinking!"