This paper describes the editorial and review process currently operating at JMS and offers the Editors' perspective on the journal's growth over the past three years. We first outline what we think is the essence of a JMS article. Then, we describe the review process from the editor's initial decision, to the reviewers' comments, to the editor's final editorial decisions, and including the process of accepting a paper. We suggest four main reasons for rejecting a paper: lack of contribution, failure to develop a theoretical contribution, fatal flaws in methods and deficiencies in analysis. With respect to the journal's progress, we show that JMS has significantly increased its position in the ISI rankings to 19th and its impact factor to 1...
Not only has the number of scholarly journals worldwide increased substantially in recent years but...
One of the most important jobs of any editorial team is ensuring the quality of the review process. ...
(JGIM). be rejected (48% of manuscripts) (p<0.01).Reviewers at JGIM agreed on recommendations to re...
In this article we respond to the key points made by Macdonald and Kam (2007) in relation to journal...
Peer review is a critical part of the publishing process at JM3, as it is for most science journals....
In this editorial, the co-editors-in-chief undertake a number of tasks related to International Jour...
This paper is written as an overview of developments relating to the Journal. The authors explain t...
The quality of an article is a critical parameter for the success of any scholarly journal, and the ...
This editorial provides an overview of the editorial process at one peer-reviewed publication. The e...
In this article we reflect on our time as editors of JMS during the period 2003-09. First we describ...
This paper investigates the fate of manuscripts that were rejected from JASSS-The Journal of Artific...
BackgroundEditorial peer review is universally used but little studied. We examined the relationship...
Yearly review and evaluation of the journal metrics and processes help to understand the value, wort...
Peer review is a mainstay of scientific publishing and, while peer reviewers and scientists r...
The noble aim of publishing an article is to drive the wheel of scientific research forward; pragmat...
Not only has the number of scholarly journals worldwide increased substantially in recent years but...
One of the most important jobs of any editorial team is ensuring the quality of the review process. ...
(JGIM). be rejected (48% of manuscripts) (p<0.01).Reviewers at JGIM agreed on recommendations to re...
In this article we respond to the key points made by Macdonald and Kam (2007) in relation to journal...
Peer review is a critical part of the publishing process at JM3, as it is for most science journals....
In this editorial, the co-editors-in-chief undertake a number of tasks related to International Jour...
This paper is written as an overview of developments relating to the Journal. The authors explain t...
The quality of an article is a critical parameter for the success of any scholarly journal, and the ...
This editorial provides an overview of the editorial process at one peer-reviewed publication. The e...
In this article we reflect on our time as editors of JMS during the period 2003-09. First we describ...
This paper investigates the fate of manuscripts that were rejected from JASSS-The Journal of Artific...
BackgroundEditorial peer review is universally used but little studied. We examined the relationship...
Yearly review and evaluation of the journal metrics and processes help to understand the value, wort...
Peer review is a mainstay of scientific publishing and, while peer reviewers and scientists r...
The noble aim of publishing an article is to drive the wheel of scientific research forward; pragmat...
Not only has the number of scholarly journals worldwide increased substantially in recent years but...
One of the most important jobs of any editorial team is ensuring the quality of the review process. ...
(JGIM). be rejected (48% of manuscripts) (p<0.01).Reviewers at JGIM agreed on recommendations to re...