Editorial 25/4: Electronic Markets on reviewing
- PDF / 667,021 Bytes
- 7 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 13 Downloads / 194 Views
EDITORIAL
Editorial 25/4: Electronic Markets on reviewing Rainer Alt 1 & Carsta Militzer-Horstmann 1 & Hans-Dieter Zimmermann 2
Published online: 4 November 2015 # Institute of Information Management, University of St. Gallen 2015
Dear readers of Electronic Markets, The last two editorials reported that Electronic Markets managed to improve its standing in two important rankings: the step from C to B in Jourqual3 (Alt et al. 2015a) and the increase of EM’s impact factor from 0.769 to 0.935 (Alt & Zimmermann 2015). Although many influences are relevant for this development, the processes within the journal are certainly one important variable. As known from the literature on process management, processes link activities performed by multiple actors in a specified sequence to attain an output that creates value for the customers of the process (Österle 1995, 62). From the perspective of an academic journal, multiple actors are involved in the submission, review and publishing process. The ultimate goal is to create value for the academic community, which refers to the advancement of the entire field of digital or electronic business (processes) with meaningful and high-quality contributions (Alt and Österle 2014a). As in a networked world, the value system of an academic journal is complex and dynamic. Isolating a single variable is difficult and very often one outcome is not only determined by many input factors, but also by itself. For example, highquality contributions are influenced by good submissions and review processes, but also by the journal’s ranking, which
* Rainer Alt [email protected] Carsta Militzer-Horstmann [email protected] Hans-Dieter Zimmermann [email protected] 1
Information Systems Institute, University of Leipzig, Grimmaische Str. 12, 04109 Leipzig, Germany
2
FHS St. Gallen, University of Applied Sciences, Rosenbergstrasse 59, 9001 St. Gallen, Switzerland
in turn has been calculated by the impact of prior – presumably also high-quality – published articles. Thus, a high impact factor and above-average rankings also attract highquality research in the future. Not all Bdesign variables^ of the journal system are amenable to direct action by the journal itself. At Electronic Markets, this is a big and continuous team effort between the editorial team, the senior, associate and guest editors as well as the editorial board and many additional reviewers. The current organization structure has evolved over the last 25 years: as described in a chronological overview (Alt et al. 2015b, 2) the double-blind review process and the international editorial board was introduced in 1999. In 2008, the role of associate editors and in 2012, the role of senior editors was created to secure quality in view of rising submission volumes. Since special issues have been a key characteristic of Electronic Markets almost from the beginning, the guest editor’s role has also had a longer tradition. However, with a growing number of submissions and participants the challenge o
Data Loading...
