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.
Authors should e-mail their paper directly to the Senior Editor
of their choice, and must also send a copy to the MISQE review
coordinator at misqe@indiana.edu
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.
Review Process
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 that is open (so that all reviewers and
authors in the manuscript's review process know each others'
identities).
- 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.
Review Criteria
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