Reviewers are members of the academic community and should be at least advanced PhD students. They need to have expertise in the domain of the paper and provide substantial feedback to the authors. The advanced PhDs should be supervised by their supervisors in preparing a review especially if it is their first review for ECIS.

How to Write a Review

Reviewing for ECIS is a serious matter. Reviews determine, whether a research paper should be published, which in the long term has an impact on authors’ professional advancement in the field.

Overall Goal:

Reviewers should review papers with the intention that no paper with merit be excluded from the conference.

Conflict of interest:

You should not review papers with which you have a conflict of interest. Please check the papers that have been assigned to you within 2 days of the assignment and let your AEs know if you have a potential conflict of interest with a paper assigned to you.

While the review process is double-blind and papers will not be assigned to reviewers from the same institution, you may recognize the work of a close colleague or a prior collaborator (within the last 5 years) and this should be brought to the attention of the AEs & TCs.

Reviewers need to communicate to a respective Associate Editor if a violation of the double-blind review policy is identified or any of the desk reject criteria is met.

Review accountability:

It is expected that the reviewer assigned by the TCs/AEs, rather than a 3rd party, will be the person reviewing the assigned paper. If, for example, you wish to have a paper assigned to you as a reviewer reviewed by a colleague, please let the AEs or TCs know so that they can add the person you suggest to the reviewers committee and assign the paper directly to them.

Timely reviewing:

Please submit your reviews on time. We have a very tight deadline and require all of your reviews by January 14, 2019. Thank you in advance for submitting your reviews by this date.

Review content & length:

Each review should start with a short statement that summarizes the paper. The statement then should follow with a summary of positive aspects of the paper. The reviewers should explain the weaknesses of the paper (i.e. what the weaknesses are and WHY they are weaknesses) and should make clear and constructive recommendations for improvement.

Reviewers are recommended to give more friendly and constructive comments to Research-in-Progress Papers (RiPs). These papers may not have data to be analyzed.

We have specific length expectation for reviews (1200 characters), it is reasonable to expect that at least a half- page review can sufficiently cover the above aspects.

Review style & tone:

Please be developmental, constructive, and positive in your reviewing. Keep in mind that we are reviewing papers, not authors, which you might want to reflect in the language you use (rather than: “the authors do/are…” why not say “the paper does/is…”). Remember that many PhD candidates and young scholars submit to ECIS. For some of them your review may be the first such feedback they receive on their work. Help them learn from this experience even if a paper might not be up to the standard required by our community.

Originality and Plagiarism:

All papers submitted to ECIS need to contain original work and must not be published in or submitted to other conferences, workshops, books or journals. Thus neither plagiarism OR self-plagiarism are acceptable. All papers need to provide substantial new contribution to the IS body of knowledge. Any hints to plagiarism need to be reported by reviewers to Associate Editors who on their turn should inform both the Track Chairs and the Program Chairs. The reported plagiarism will be investigated. 

Confidentiality:

It is expected that all participants involved in the review process support the confidentiality of the submitted papers, the other reviewers’ identities and the entire review process.

For more information, please downloand  ECIS 2019 Reviewers Guidelines (946 Kb)