WEBVTT 00:00:04.640 --> 00:00:06.740 Recker, my brother, what's going on? 00:00:06.740 --> 00:00:08.500 Nick, my man, how are you doing? 00:00:08.500 --> 00:00:09.100 I'm feeling good. 00:00:09.100 --> 00:00:11.840 Thank you for not asking. 00:00:11.840 --> 00:00:19.040 Hey, so listen, you and I talked not that long ago, and we talk about this every once in a while as editors. 00:00:19.040 --> 00:00:28.880 And I know you, you're editor-in-chief for CAIS, you're editor, senior editor at MISQ, you've had some good editorial experience. 00:00:28.880 --> 00:00:32.140 I have some editorial experience at ISR and MISQ. 00:00:32.140 --> 00:00:34.620 And then our good buddy, Jason Thatcher. 00:00:34.620 --> 00:00:39.180 What have you, Jason, you were senior editor at ISR. 00:00:39.180 --> 00:00:39.740 You're next. 00:00:39.740 --> 00:00:40.660 You're editor at MISQ. 00:00:40.660 --> 00:00:41.600 What other editorial? 00:00:41.600 --> 00:00:45.040 I've done GIS as a senior editor. 00:00:45.040 --> 00:00:48.320 I've done database as an AE. 00:00:48.400 --> 00:00:51.180 Oh, database for advances. 00:00:51.180 --> 00:00:52.360 Yeah, a long time ago. 00:00:52.360 --> 00:00:53.020 Cool. 00:00:53.020 --> 00:00:54.320 That was a good experience, actually. 00:00:54.320 --> 00:00:56.720 You were never on JAIS, Jason? 00:00:56.720 --> 00:00:59.060 No, I was in SE there for a long time. 00:00:59.060 --> 00:00:59.320 Yeah. 00:00:59.320 --> 00:01:00.480 Oh, that's what you said. 00:01:00.480 --> 00:01:01.920 I thought you said GIS. 00:01:01.920 --> 00:01:03.220 No, no, no. 00:01:03.220 --> 00:01:04.040 GIS. 00:01:04.040 --> 00:01:05.000 I don't know anything about math. 00:01:05.000 --> 00:01:05.960 I don't know what that is. 00:01:05.960 --> 00:01:06.840 Yeah, I was going to ask you. 00:01:06.840 --> 00:01:07.720 It's interesting, actually. 00:01:07.720 --> 00:01:08.580 The JAIS. 00:01:08.940 --> 00:01:12.260 But I don't have the time to figure out all the layers and stuff. 00:01:12.320 --> 00:01:14.560 And then, I'm trying to think. 00:01:14.560 --> 00:01:17.920 AISTCI, I was on the board for a long time. 00:01:18.080 --> 00:01:24.200 I still am, but I don't do very many papers because I am kind of swamped with wrapping up ISR still. 00:01:24.200 --> 00:01:28.640 I still have 10 or 12 in my queue, plus all the quarterly stuff coming in. 00:01:28.960 --> 00:01:32.760 So that was actually a surprise how hard it was to do both. 00:01:32.760 --> 00:01:33.160 Yeah. 00:01:33.160 --> 00:01:35.360 So here's a guy who's busy. 00:01:35.360 --> 00:01:43.440 So Recker, as an editor, between the three of us, we should probably have a pretty good amount of experience editing. 00:01:43.440 --> 00:01:46.720 So how's this for today? 00:01:46.720 --> 00:01:47.500 Let's discuss. 00:01:47.500 --> 00:01:50.400 We're going to give advice to editors. 00:01:50.400 --> 00:01:55.980 All editors out there, and yes, aspiring editors, authors, anyone. 00:01:55.980 --> 00:02:02.600 Authors, I suggest you take the lessons from this podcast and use it to argue with your editors that we're going to tell them. 00:02:02.600 --> 00:02:04.860 That can be very dangerous. 00:02:04.980 --> 00:02:05.760 Okay, I like it. 00:02:05.760 --> 00:02:06.380 Okay, why not? 00:02:06.380 --> 00:02:07.980 Don't let them elicit in this podcast. 00:02:07.980 --> 00:02:13.480 This is going to be 101 for how to be an editor is what we're going to do. 00:02:13.480 --> 00:02:14.460 All right. 00:02:14.460 --> 00:02:18.540 So what we did, and we never prepared, but today we prepared. 00:02:18.540 --> 00:02:22.660 Each of us showed up with a list, and it was supposed to be five things. 00:02:22.660 --> 00:02:26.160 But I mean, Jason, before we started, told me you have 10. 00:02:26.160 --> 00:02:27.780 I have more than five. 00:02:27.780 --> 00:02:29.560 Recker, you probably didn't do your homework. 00:02:29.880 --> 00:02:30.820 I have four. 00:02:30.820 --> 00:02:31.700 I have four. 00:02:31.700 --> 00:02:33.880 Actually, I wrote on seven, but I only like four of them. 00:02:34.000 --> 00:02:35.780 So, I have four. 00:02:35.780 --> 00:02:36.440 That's what we're going to do. 00:02:36.440 --> 00:02:37.280 Let's do a round robin. 00:02:37.280 --> 00:02:39.840 Everybody gets to pick one, and Jason is our guest. 00:02:39.840 --> 00:02:40.900 Why don't you start us off? 00:02:40.900 --> 00:02:42.340 Pick your favorite first. 00:02:42.340 --> 00:02:43.780 What's the rule to be an editor? 00:02:43.780 --> 00:02:46.100 We're educating editors, right? 00:02:46.100 --> 00:02:48.080 Mind reading. 00:02:48.080 --> 00:02:48.840 What? 00:02:48.840 --> 00:02:50.660 Mind reading. 00:02:50.660 --> 00:02:52.480 It's like, I told you, I came up with superpowers. 00:02:52.480 --> 00:02:54.020 I didn't come up with being editors. 00:02:54.020 --> 00:02:56.380 These are editorial superpowers. 00:02:56.380 --> 00:02:58.720 I feel like you have to explain that one a little bit. 00:02:58.720 --> 00:03:00.640 I'm going to explain that one. 00:03:00.640 --> 00:03:05.840 And what it means is you anticipate how the community is going to respond to a paper. 00:03:05.960 --> 00:03:18.240 And when you get that first paper and you do the first cut, you have to be able to read the paper and actually see through the paper, because often they're not that great, and ask yourself, how is the community going to respond? 00:03:18.240 --> 00:03:20.940 How does it contribute to where we're going? 00:03:20.940 --> 00:03:23.880 And is it possible to get it there? 00:03:23.880 --> 00:03:26.800 And I think that's the number one superpower of a good editor. 00:03:26.800 --> 00:03:30.880 Because often we get not great papers and we help people make them great. 00:03:30.880 --> 00:03:35.720 But when you say mind reading, you're assuming it's in the mind of the author. 00:03:35.720 --> 00:03:36.800 Sometimes it's not. 00:03:37.160 --> 00:03:38.040 No, no, no. 00:03:38.200 --> 00:03:40.760 I'm assuming I'm reading the mind of the community. 00:03:40.760 --> 00:03:41.660 Of the community. 00:03:41.660 --> 00:03:44.360 Yeah, you have to have your finger on the pulse of the community. 00:03:44.360 --> 00:03:48.120 Because if we don't accept papers, no one's going to read, right? 00:03:48.120 --> 00:03:55.640 We want to accept papers that touch the discourse, that move the discourse forward, and they have the potential. 00:03:55.640 --> 00:03:59.580 And really it's not accept, it's extend a revision to in that first round. 00:03:59.580 --> 00:04:00.920 That's the riskiest round. 00:04:02.280 --> 00:04:09.020 And if the paper is interesting, but it has nothing to do with what the IS community is doing, it's not a good fit for the journal. 00:04:09.020 --> 00:04:10.380 All right, let me play that back, Jason. 00:04:10.380 --> 00:04:24.500 So what you're saying is like you get a paper, like around one submission signed to you, and you're asking yourself, when I accept this paper and it shows up in one of these table of content alerts in the paper, how is Jan Recker going to react to when he gets this email, when he sees it? 00:04:24.500 --> 00:04:26.100 That's exactly what I'm saying. 00:04:26.100 --> 00:04:26.720 Yeah, okay. 00:04:27.060 --> 00:04:34.100 So it's like your finger is on the pulse of the community, and you know that if something is appropriate, you're going to usher it in. 00:04:34.460 --> 00:04:35.340 Absolutely. 00:04:35.340 --> 00:04:36.020 Yeah. 00:04:36.020 --> 00:04:36.920 This is a good opportunity. 00:04:37.480 --> 00:04:41.960 Can you name an example of a paper where you did that, that may have come out where you were an editor? 00:04:41.960 --> 00:04:43.360 Can you give a nice example? 00:04:43.360 --> 00:04:46.720 I like every paper I accept, I feel that way. 00:04:46.720 --> 00:04:47.160 Yeah. 00:04:47.160 --> 00:04:47.580 Okay. 00:04:47.640 --> 00:04:51.780 So I mean, I really do. 00:04:52.040 --> 00:05:09.120 When I look at your AI special issue, you guys did a really good job of theoretically sampling the field and tapping into what a bunch of different people, and I'm not kissing up here because you accepted my paper, but you did a really good job of theoretically sampling the field and seeding a bunch of different conversations, right? 00:05:09.120 --> 00:05:10.560 I mean, that was the goal. 00:05:12.340 --> 00:05:14.540 I think that's what we should be doing as senior editors. 00:05:14.540 --> 00:05:26.100 I think that's the first and foremost thing, is we should be picking provocative papers that when you skim the content, you're going to go, oh, this isn't just another scraped paper where I counted the number of thumbs ups. 00:05:26.100 --> 00:05:33.420 And I did a little experiment to count whether the purple thumbs up versus a green thumbs up made it better or jokes or something. 00:05:33.420 --> 00:05:38.200 I want something that's really going to move the ball forward and get people engaged. 00:05:38.320 --> 00:05:47.640 And the best person I saw that I think of when I think of like who had that superpower, when it was Anne Majchrzak back in the day before she retired. 00:05:47.640 --> 00:05:49.900 Like, she was, she was really... 00:05:49.900 --> 00:05:51.080 Well, Anne Myshock. 00:05:51.080 --> 00:05:52.040 Yeah, I can't pronounce her name. 00:05:52.040 --> 00:05:53.220 Her name is Myshock. 00:05:53.220 --> 00:05:54.740 Okay, so, you know, I'm not... 00:05:54.740 --> 00:05:56.240 Anne is awesome at that. 00:05:56.240 --> 00:05:57.060 You're right. 00:05:57.060 --> 00:06:00.060 She's just really good at picking great papers. 00:06:00.060 --> 00:06:03.500 I think sometimes she even goes out to hunt these papers. 00:06:03.500 --> 00:06:06.720 When she learns about these papers, she's like, send them to me, send them to me. 00:06:06.720 --> 00:06:07.820 Yeah, and I think that's important. 00:06:08.820 --> 00:06:11.360 Yeah, Anne Myshock has been an editor on two of my papers. 00:06:11.360 --> 00:06:16.040 One, a forthcoming in MySQL, one was like over a decade ago in OrgSci. 00:06:16.040 --> 00:06:17.120 Both of those papers. 00:06:17.120 --> 00:06:22.720 So she, actually a lot of what I do as an editor, there are a couple of people that I imitate. 00:06:22.720 --> 00:06:28.440 I basically imitate Anne, Andrew, ABJ, and Amrit, Tawana. 00:06:28.440 --> 00:06:32.780 These are people who were senior editors when I was kind of coming up as an associate editor. 00:06:32.780 --> 00:06:36.820 And you're right, the things that they modeled, I try to embrace. 00:06:37.280 --> 00:06:43.340 And one of those is, they have a sense, they have like a salesman instinct for what the community needs. 00:06:43.340 --> 00:06:44.800 And then they give it to them. 00:06:44.800 --> 00:06:46.300 So I'm going to go with number two. 00:06:46.300 --> 00:06:47.800 We're going to go to meet with the epic visit. 00:06:47.800 --> 00:06:49.720 It flows from this. 00:06:49.720 --> 00:06:51.720 You have that pulse of the community. 00:06:51.720 --> 00:06:53.420 You know what's interesting to the community. 00:06:53.420 --> 00:06:56.500 We can move the community forward. 00:06:56.500 --> 00:07:00.460 And then you give the authors a path to publication. 00:07:00.460 --> 00:07:06.380 Instead of just saying, Hey, it's nice and make the record. 00:07:06.380 --> 00:07:07.560 You and I talked about this. 00:07:07.560 --> 00:07:11.660 They'll bring me the rock parable where some senior editors will do this. 00:07:11.660 --> 00:07:23.840 They'll be like, yeah, make the address what the the review team says and, oh, make the front end stronger and make the back end stronger and make your literature review strong. 00:07:23.840 --> 00:07:30.000 And by the way, this is probably a risky revision at risk, high risk revision, but make everything stronger. 00:07:30.600 --> 00:07:31.920 And it's like, great. 00:07:32.980 --> 00:07:36.520 So strong and it's a risky revision. 00:07:36.520 --> 00:07:40.420 It's much better to be like, hey, go with what reviewer one says. 00:07:40.420 --> 00:07:43.220 This is how you should handle reviewer two. 00:07:43.220 --> 00:07:44.760 Don't worry about this comment. 00:07:44.760 --> 00:07:48.040 I think you should go this way or use your discretion for this one. 00:07:48.040 --> 00:07:49.160 You'd be very explicit. 00:07:49.160 --> 00:07:50.740 Say, this is what your paper is about. 00:07:50.740 --> 00:07:51.800 Get rid of these other. 00:07:51.800 --> 00:07:53.580 And my shock was wonderful at that. 00:07:53.580 --> 00:07:56.300 She would say, no, this is what your paper is about. 00:07:56.300 --> 00:07:58.720 Get rid of that other stuff. 00:07:58.720 --> 00:07:59.880 I want you to focus on this. 00:08:00.460 --> 00:08:04.460 The paper she just accepted from us that's coming up, that's exactly what she did. 00:08:04.460 --> 00:08:06.920 She, after the first round, said, I don't like this. 00:08:06.920 --> 00:08:07.680 I don't like this. 00:08:07.680 --> 00:08:08.420 This I like. 00:08:08.420 --> 00:08:10.120 That's what your paper is going to be about. 00:08:10.120 --> 00:08:10.320 Right? 00:08:10.320 --> 00:08:11.880 And it's a conceptual paper. 00:08:11.880 --> 00:08:14.020 The path to publication. 00:08:14.020 --> 00:08:15.040 They're editors. 00:08:15.040 --> 00:08:17.060 They're not vote counters. 00:08:17.060 --> 00:08:18.840 They're not just hanging out judging. 00:08:18.840 --> 00:08:21.060 No, they're editing like a newspaper editor. 00:08:21.060 --> 00:08:24.920 They go and tell you, do this, do that, do this other thing. 00:08:24.920 --> 00:08:27.300 And here's how you're going to navigate your reviews, right? 00:08:27.300 --> 00:08:28.360 The path to publication. 00:08:28.880 --> 00:08:29.480 What do you guys think? 00:08:29.480 --> 00:08:32.200 Is that a good rule number two? 00:08:32.200 --> 00:08:32.780 Yep. 00:08:32.780 --> 00:08:33.220 I like it. 00:08:33.560 --> 00:08:34.500 No questions asked. 00:08:34.500 --> 00:08:35.720 I have a very different one. 00:08:35.720 --> 00:08:37.680 Give me, let me, rule number three. 00:08:37.680 --> 00:08:39.380 I'm not sure whether you guys like it. 00:08:39.380 --> 00:08:47.220 When you get a paper signed, which is an email from ScholarOne or something from the EIC, act on it in one day. 00:08:47.220 --> 00:08:49.140 Act on it by tomorrow. 00:08:49.140 --> 00:08:50.900 Ooh, I like it. 00:08:50.980 --> 00:08:55.660 Right, so that means like if when you get an email, don't let it sit till next Saturday. 00:08:55.660 --> 00:08:58.760 Don't let it wait for a week until you open the PDF. 00:08:58.760 --> 00:09:12.460 Like click on it, get the PDF, have a look at the paper, start thinking about it, and then make up your mind tomorrow whether you want to assign an AE, whether you want to invite reviewers, or in fact, if you make a decision like maybe I'll desk reject it. 00:09:12.540 --> 00:09:16.060 Of course, I'm not saying you need to desk reject it in a day, but act on it. 00:09:16.060 --> 00:09:19.100 Start acting on it within one day when you get the paper. 00:09:19.960 --> 00:09:21.380 Can I add to that? 00:09:21.380 --> 00:09:21.660 Yeah. 00:09:21.660 --> 00:09:27.580 Can I say act on it in a day and get it off your lap in under two weeks? 00:09:27.580 --> 00:09:31.400 So yes, you act on it in a day and if you assign it in a day, then you're good. 00:09:31.400 --> 00:09:39.160 If you're going to do a desk revision or a desk reject, or then you do that soon, like not three weeks, not four weeks. 00:09:39.160 --> 00:09:46.820 Now, if you get the AE report back to you, you look at it and within two weeks, you have your SE report back to the authors. 00:09:46.920 --> 00:09:47.460 Five days. 00:09:47.460 --> 00:09:49.640 I give myself five days for that. 00:09:49.840 --> 00:09:54.640 So I would give myself a week as well, although I've been falling short of that a couple of times lately. 00:09:54.640 --> 00:09:58.980 I give myself a week, but I was figuring for other people and you can give them two weeks. 00:09:58.980 --> 00:09:59.980 Yeah, that's fine. 00:09:59.980 --> 00:10:00.500 Yeah. 00:10:00.720 --> 00:10:03.360 I think you guys are superhuman. 00:10:04.320 --> 00:10:09.420 I aspire to that, but sometimes it takes me longer. 00:10:09.420 --> 00:10:13.660 Maybe I need more time to think, and maybe I'm in the middle of a heavy grading period. 00:10:13.660 --> 00:10:21.880 But I think within two weeks to a month, if it's a test project is okay, unless I need to do some extra reading to understand the paper. 00:10:21.880 --> 00:10:23.660 Like I said, start acting on it. 00:10:23.660 --> 00:10:28.960 I didn't say like decide on it, but it's like start looking at it so you can start thinking about it. 00:10:28.960 --> 00:10:29.140 Yeah. 00:10:29.140 --> 00:10:35.060 I always look at it and then I think who should be the AE, and then I try to figure out the COIs that are hidden somewhere in there. 00:10:36.360 --> 00:10:37.280 Because that's important. 00:10:38.320 --> 00:10:40.580 You want to make sure every paper gets a fair shake. 00:10:41.160 --> 00:10:44.760 But right now, I am not as fast as I would like to be. 00:10:45.220 --> 00:10:46.440 But can I say this? 00:10:46.440 --> 00:10:49.160 This is going to be, I guess, a little bit provocative. 00:10:49.180 --> 00:10:50.240 It's not against you, anyone. 00:10:50.440 --> 00:10:52.040 It's actually not even against editors. 00:10:52.040 --> 00:10:59.460 I just see this as a, what do you call it, a carte blanche excuse all the time. 00:10:59.460 --> 00:11:03.780 Oh, my teaching intensive period is starting or right now or whatever. 00:11:03.780 --> 00:11:05.840 I can only get to this in three weeks. 00:11:05.840 --> 00:11:07.340 I'm like, what? 00:11:08.760 --> 00:11:10.100 You have to teach right now? 00:11:10.100 --> 00:11:12.100 Does that mean you're teaching 24-7? 00:11:12.760 --> 00:11:17.920 No, that probably means like that two times a week, you have three hours or whatever, you have to do some teaching. 00:11:17.920 --> 00:11:23.200 You get student labels, I know, I'm teaching, I've been teaching for 20 years, I know what that means, I know what intensive teaching means. 00:11:23.200 --> 00:11:27.200 It does not mean that you can't do anything else for a month. 00:11:27.200 --> 00:11:28.160 I hate that excuse. 00:11:28.160 --> 00:11:29.280 I really hate it. 00:11:29.280 --> 00:11:30.040 I think that's plus. 00:11:30.040 --> 00:11:31.500 You know why they'd say that? 00:11:31.500 --> 00:11:34.920 Because they don't put time aside to review or edit. 00:11:34.920 --> 00:11:41.220 They think that, oh, my main thing is submitting papers and my main thing is doing my teaching, and my main thing is all that. 00:11:41.720 --> 00:11:46.540 And then when I have time on my hands, I can do reviews and editing. 00:11:46.540 --> 00:12:10.980 The fact is, you have to make time, just like everything else, and prioritize it because you're submitting your shitty work to everybody, having them read it, and you're asking every time you submit a paper, you're asking two, three, five people to look at that paper, give you comments, you're producing papers, you're submitting them, you expect timely comments, and then yet you wait for a month or so. 00:12:11.420 --> 00:12:18.760 No, if you're producing papers, that means there should be time on your calendar every single week and you're busy. 00:12:18.760 --> 00:12:21.620 I'm freaking an administrator in my ori- 00:12:21.620 --> 00:12:31.440 and I teach and do all kinds of things and I have too many, and I will every single week move my reviewing and editing forward. 00:12:32.380 --> 00:12:40.600 So I buy that, but in terms of making swift decisions, I have to think about the papers before I actually make the decision. 00:12:40.600 --> 00:12:44.600 Well, wait, when you say you have to think about the paper, what does that mean? 00:12:44.600 --> 00:12:50.080 To me, it means I go for a day, I read the paper, then I think about it for the night. 00:12:50.080 --> 00:12:51.660 Maybe the next day I'll think about it. 00:12:51.660 --> 00:12:57.580 Maybe I'll do some things, maybe I'll read some, but it's like two days and I already have the review comments in front of me. 00:12:57.760 --> 00:12:59.240 I don't need to think about this for weeks. 00:13:00.100 --> 00:13:03.260 I'm going to interject or talk over here for a sec, because I'm just as smart as you. 00:13:03.800 --> 00:13:09.040 I sometimes have to go read additional papers because I want to make sure I'm making the right decision. 00:13:09.220 --> 00:13:10.140 I get that, Jason. 00:13:10.140 --> 00:13:14.120 This is why I very deliberately say start acting on these things when they come in. 00:13:14.120 --> 00:13:16.540 Because I got the same thing. 00:13:16.540 --> 00:13:25.120 What I want is when the paper comes in, when the reviews come in, literally when it works out, literally when the review is submitted and get that email, I look at it. 00:13:25.120 --> 00:13:28.900 Not because I'm not deciding in that moment, but it's now in my head. 00:13:28.900 --> 00:13:31.320 I've read it and I start thinking about it. 00:13:31.320 --> 00:13:32.800 That's all it takes. 00:13:32.800 --> 00:13:37.000 Next time I'll go for a run, I can think about the paper, I can think about the review, I can think about my decisions. 00:13:37.000 --> 00:13:39.920 Tomorrow, I can read a paper if I have to do it, etc. 00:13:39.920 --> 00:13:43.660 That way, I can actually turn it around in three, four, five days. 00:13:43.660 --> 00:13:45.660 At the moment, I have a difficult paper to handle. 00:13:45.660 --> 00:13:47.220 It's been sitting on my lap for over a week. 00:13:47.220 --> 00:13:49.360 I'm now getting anxious to get it out. 00:13:49.360 --> 00:13:52.240 But it's difficult and I don't want to rush it. 00:13:52.240 --> 00:14:01.300 But I've been thinking about it ever since the very second that I got that email, because that's when I clicked on it, looked at it, looked at the review package, and started pondering. 00:14:01.360 --> 00:14:03.480 Then I can do some extra work. 00:14:03.480 --> 00:14:04.580 I'm not saying deciding. 00:14:04.580 --> 00:14:06.520 I said acting. 00:14:06.520 --> 00:14:16.920 Yeah, by that part, I'm just saying that I don't want to have the listeners think that we're going to get the paper, we're going to look at it, and they're going to get a decision in five days if it's a desk reject. 00:14:16.960 --> 00:14:17.900 I've done that too, by the way. 00:14:18.200 --> 00:14:27.420 I've written desk reject and then I waited for a week to send it out, but I had to have it written up, but I didn't want to look like I spent a day on your paper, which in fact I did. 00:14:27.420 --> 00:14:28.620 Anyway, hey, Jason. 00:14:29.000 --> 00:14:31.200 Now you hit my next superpower. 00:14:31.280 --> 00:14:32.420 No, not next. 00:14:32.420 --> 00:14:39.260 I'm going to just close the loop on this one because I do agree with something you said, Jason, and that's like I need to read the paper. 00:14:39.660 --> 00:14:40.820 You're right. 00:14:40.820 --> 00:14:58.480 I need to read a couple of papers and I think that's one of the things, we can almost make this another rule in and of itself, which is that I don't think that a lot of, and this is probably why you're a good editor, you take it on yourself to understand the substance of the argument and the conversation that they're in. 00:14:58.480 --> 00:15:02.180 If you're not immediately familiar with it, you'll go read. 00:15:02.180 --> 00:15:13.080 Too often, I don't think senior editors, they'll read the paper hopefully, but they read the comments, they vote count, and then they don't go back to those original papers that you're citing, the original books. 00:15:13.140 --> 00:15:15.900 I had, I forget which, I don't know if it was Anne. 00:15:15.900 --> 00:15:16.960 It might have been Anne Majchak. 00:15:16.960 --> 00:15:18.320 It was. 00:15:18.320 --> 00:15:26.320 When we wrote the first version of that paper that went three years at MISQ, or two years, the last two years at MISQ, we've been working on it. 00:15:26.320 --> 00:15:27.980 She's been senior editor. 00:15:27.980 --> 00:15:29.700 We cited a book. 00:15:30.940 --> 00:15:34.380 We ended up not going that direction on affordances. 00:15:34.380 --> 00:15:45.820 This Davis person, she has this book, but we cited the book on affordances and read the book in the first senior editor. 00:15:46.540 --> 00:15:54.880 In our first revision, she read, she goes, I was interested in this, so I went and read the book by this Davis person on affordances and I'll get it. 00:15:54.880 --> 00:15:57.120 I hope I'm not missing the name. 00:15:58.300 --> 00:16:09.360 Then she parsed the book, came back to us and said, and we ended up not really using it too much in the paper, but in that first version we did, and she went and read the book. 00:16:09.780 --> 00:16:12.660 Now, what you are saying is exactly what we should be doing. 00:16:12.660 --> 00:16:18.780 If you don't know the substance of their conversation, as a senior editor, you should. 00:16:18.780 --> 00:16:20.040 So I think that's wonderful. 00:16:20.040 --> 00:16:23.860 If that extends it out beyond the first few days, great. 00:16:24.060 --> 00:16:25.900 So that's your second rule, Nick? 00:16:26.140 --> 00:16:27.960 I think really. 00:16:27.960 --> 00:16:31.120 I guess that's my second rule that I'm adding to our rules. 00:16:31.120 --> 00:16:34.000 Jason, give us a new superpower or an anti-superpower. 00:16:34.000 --> 00:16:36.580 So I think you have to have laser vision. 00:16:37.760 --> 00:16:47.080 We've hinted at that, but I think as an SC, you have to be able to see through all the different competing reviews, some of which feel like they're written by ChatGPT right now. 00:16:47.080 --> 00:16:47.560 Okay. 00:16:47.560 --> 00:16:54.400 And you have to see through the AE report sometimes, and really actually see through all that clutter, what's the path to publication? 00:16:54.400 --> 00:16:58.300 And I think that kind of aligns with what you're saying, Jan and Nick earlier. 00:16:58.300 --> 00:17:04.180 But I think you really have to be able to go through and say, look, these are the three, four or five things I want you to do. 00:17:04.300 --> 00:17:06.460 And for me, that usually comes in the second round. 00:17:06.700 --> 00:17:11.260 In the first round, I let the authors wander a bit more because it's their paper they should explore. 00:17:11.260 --> 00:17:14.300 And the second round, you should know, right? 00:17:14.300 --> 00:17:16.240 You should really know the path. 00:17:16.240 --> 00:17:18.180 You see a path to publication. 00:17:18.180 --> 00:17:18.960 Damn right. 00:17:18.960 --> 00:17:19.600 I love that. 00:17:19.600 --> 00:17:22.660 So it's the path to publication, but second round. 00:17:22.660 --> 00:17:25.780 Yeah, not third round, not fourth, not fifth. 00:17:25.780 --> 00:17:29.880 I mean, at one point, you're telling the authors, do this to get published. 00:17:29.880 --> 00:17:31.040 Yeah, I love that. 00:17:31.100 --> 00:17:32.860 Second round, clear path. 00:17:32.860 --> 00:17:35.020 What do you think about this, Jason? 00:17:35.020 --> 00:17:38.740 How often, how long should you use reviewers? 00:17:38.740 --> 00:17:41.960 I have been toying with that a lot lately. 00:17:42.280 --> 00:17:49.940 So I used to think it should go into the fifth round, if there were things I wasn't quite sure about, because my reviewers are experts. 00:17:49.940 --> 00:17:57.460 But lately, I've been saying, thanks and I don't need you anymore to reviewers after the second or third round. 00:17:57.460 --> 00:17:58.340 It really just depends. 00:18:00.480 --> 00:18:01.820 So go ahead, Sir. 00:18:01.820 --> 00:18:04.500 Very rarely do I use them in the third round. 00:18:04.500 --> 00:18:11.180 Because again, first of all, I don't think we have a lot of experts left. 00:18:13.120 --> 00:18:15.660 So let me qualify that. 00:18:15.660 --> 00:18:22.960 So what I mean is, how often do you really have a paper where, let's stay with Anmarszak. 00:18:22.960 --> 00:18:36.260 So that is really a paper that really directly speaks to her, let's say, collaborative affordances or whatever, these sorts of things, and then she is the expert on the topic and it directly speaks to her and it's complicated. 00:18:36.260 --> 00:18:38.540 So I really need to ask her four times. 00:18:38.540 --> 00:18:40.320 How often is that really the case? 00:18:40.320 --> 00:18:49.860 So more often I get like, okay, I have a paper, I need someone from social networking, I need someone that knows computation analysis, and I need someone that can handle this and that theory. 00:18:50.380 --> 00:18:58.940 So these are more, they have good knowledge of these particular method, domains, theories, whatever phenomena. 00:18:58.940 --> 00:19:00.160 Are they really expert? 00:19:00.160 --> 00:19:02.960 Do I really need to drill really, really, really down? 00:19:02.960 --> 00:19:04.140 I've had that in one of my papers. 00:19:04.140 --> 00:19:10.100 We had, I'm not sure whether it was Gioia himself, or, you know, Gioia expert deep into the fourth round. 00:19:10.100 --> 00:19:11.620 Fair enough, fair enough. 00:19:11.620 --> 00:19:13.480 But most of the time I don't have that. 00:19:13.480 --> 00:19:18.820 And then I have someone who says like, from the social network, there's a contribution, that's fine. 00:19:18.820 --> 00:19:22.800 And I know that after the second or third round, I know there's a contribution or not. 00:19:22.800 --> 00:19:28.340 If it's a method guy, I know after a round or two, if the experiments are good or not, they're not going to change. 00:19:28.340 --> 00:19:36.460 So I don't see a need of asking them three or four times, because frankly speaking, I rarely ever actually have a need for deep expertise. 00:19:36.460 --> 00:19:38.560 Nor do I get them necessarily. 00:19:38.560 --> 00:19:38.820 Sorry. 00:19:38.860 --> 00:19:40.620 Yeah, I could tell you a funny story. 00:19:40.620 --> 00:19:45.460 My 2014 paper, it was a social materiality special issue at MISQ. 00:19:45.460 --> 00:19:49.380 So James Gaskin, Colley, Young, Jane and I wrote this. 00:19:49.380 --> 00:19:51.080 The zooming paper? 00:19:51.080 --> 00:19:56.260 Yeah, zooming in and out and what, sociotechnical routines. 00:19:56.260 --> 00:20:00.200 We actually did a find and replace of sociomaterial for sociotechnical. 00:20:00.200 --> 00:20:02.420 We wrote the paper, sociotechnical. 00:20:03.500 --> 00:20:06.840 There's a special issue for sociomaterial, so we did a find and replace. 00:20:07.500 --> 00:20:09.380 And we just did not, it did not. 00:20:09.820 --> 00:20:11.120 That's horrible. 00:20:12.820 --> 00:20:15.360 We're turning this into like MTV confessionals. 00:20:15.360 --> 00:20:19.840 That is by the way, that says a lot about this entire sociomateriality debate. 00:20:19.840 --> 00:20:20.840 Yeah. 00:20:20.840 --> 00:20:22.140 So, but that's just it. 00:20:22.140 --> 00:20:25.700 We were beat up a little bit by the sociomateriality people in the first couple rounds. 00:20:25.700 --> 00:20:29.880 So we, we argued and we argued using Heidegger, right? 00:20:29.880 --> 00:20:34.400 We argued using a lot of like the core kind of assumptions around the ontological. 00:20:34.440 --> 00:20:37.100 This was the heyday of ontological inseparability. 00:20:37.100 --> 00:20:37.680 Well, whatever. 00:20:37.680 --> 00:20:41.120 So, so we sent it there and it went two rounds. 00:20:41.120 --> 00:20:46.780 After two rounds, the, all the reviewers were like, yeah, we buy the argument. 00:20:46.980 --> 00:20:48.140 I guess you're right. 00:20:48.140 --> 00:20:55.120 But none of them, apparently none of the editors and none of the reviewers because we used Habermas quite a bit in that paper. 00:20:55.120 --> 00:20:57.520 And you know, we have Collie on our author team. 00:20:57.520 --> 00:20:59.880 And it's like he's the Habermas expert of our field. 00:20:59.880 --> 00:21:05.940 So it's, you know, so the editors decided, oh, we need to add a Habermas expert. 00:21:05.940 --> 00:21:09.020 And this was like in the third round or maybe even fourth round. 00:21:09.520 --> 00:21:15.900 They added a reviewer because we had so much Habermas, they needed to add a Habermas expert. 00:21:15.900 --> 00:21:17.740 So they added the Habermas expert. 00:21:17.740 --> 00:21:19.420 We get the reviews back. 00:21:19.420 --> 00:21:21.140 The guy said nothing about Habermas. 00:21:21.140 --> 00:21:26.140 Instead, it was all this socio-materiality, you know, ontological, et cetera. 00:21:26.140 --> 00:21:35.720 He was basically yet another socio-material reviewer that we had to deal with in order to get published after we already spent a couple of rounds dealing with all the others. 00:21:37.060 --> 00:21:38.900 And yeah, I think that that's what happens. 00:21:38.900 --> 00:21:46.460 I think you have these editors who don't want to just be like, hey, so let the argument happen in the journal. 00:21:46.460 --> 00:21:48.680 We don't have to make every argument. 00:21:48.680 --> 00:21:54.420 Like, you know, if it's a cool idea, publish the damn thing, let people argue with it after it's been published. 00:21:54.420 --> 00:21:58.140 You don't have to make everyone love everything before it's published. 00:21:58.980 --> 00:22:02.020 So what happened to you, I would call, is an editor being a super villain. 00:22:02.020 --> 00:22:03.940 So let's do a super villain power. 00:22:05.060 --> 00:22:07.360 It's when the editor lacks courage. 00:22:07.360 --> 00:22:19.560 So they bring in a fourth reviewer to confirm either the reject because they're nervous that they might be making a mistake or they're bringing in a fourth reviewer because they want to have their opinion built up. 00:22:19.560 --> 00:22:21.020 They want to be confirmed. 00:22:22.040 --> 00:22:24.100 And I absolutely hate it when that happens. 00:22:24.100 --> 00:22:39.940 That's happened to me a number of times, and it's happened to me at JIS, more than it's happened to me at the Quarterly or ISR, where the editor is like, well, you know, you're in your second or third round, you've done everything we've asked, but I decided to get a third opinion, and that third opinion is always a reject decision. 00:22:39.940 --> 00:22:43.400 Just if the editor is going to reject the paper, just say you don't like the paper. 00:22:43.400 --> 00:22:44.320 Don't extend it out. 00:22:44.320 --> 00:22:47.080 Don't add two months by adding this extra person. 00:22:47.080 --> 00:22:48.640 Just say no, and that's okay. 00:22:48.640 --> 00:22:49.860 That's your choice. 00:22:49.860 --> 00:22:53.460 But you shouldn't have to go and get social proof, and that's all it is, right? 00:22:53.620 --> 00:22:56.280 Social proof that my paper sucks. 00:22:56.280 --> 00:22:56.700 Yeah. 00:22:56.700 --> 00:23:06.200 So like I'm fully with you, I would even go as far as like I don't like, to me very often as an editor, that's the third review or not even the fourth, because I like working with two reviewers only. 00:23:06.200 --> 00:23:09.020 But I just want to jump into the defense of JS a little bit. 00:23:09.020 --> 00:23:12.500 I'm an editor there as well, and I know that's one of the policies. 00:23:12.500 --> 00:23:14.060 They want you to do that. 00:23:14.980 --> 00:23:22.840 They have that special AI role there, that they want to bring in a senior reviewers in case that you have two or three reviewers where you don't have a clear picture. 00:23:23.280 --> 00:23:25.860 So, it's kind of the journal form. 00:23:25.860 --> 00:23:27.580 I think it's a supervillain thing. 00:23:28.020 --> 00:23:29.280 I don't care if it's the policy. 00:23:29.280 --> 00:23:30.760 It's a supervillain policy. 00:23:32.040 --> 00:23:33.800 It's not good for the field. 00:23:34.040 --> 00:23:35.080