10-17-2020 11:09

This is Listen to the Editors, a series of interviews with journal editors to unveil the trends in research on Operations and Supply Chain Management.

I am your host, Iuri Gavronski.

This month, we are posting in our podcast a workshop promoted by the Journal of Supply Chain Management, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, and the Journal of Business Logistics.

The editors-in-chief for these four journals convened online on Aug 20, 2020, to promote a workshop for reviewers and we find very interesting their insights on ethics on publication, how do you interact with the editors, and what is expected from the reviewers. I hope our listeners enjoy this episode.


The editors that were presenting and discussing were:

* Barbara B. Flynn; Professor Kelley School of Business at the Indiana University, co-EIC for the Journal of Supply Chain Management

* David Cantor; Professor of Supply Chain Management at Iowa State University - Ivy College of Business, co-EIC for the Journal of Supply Chain Management

* Wendy Tate; Professor of Supply Chain Management Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management at the University of Tennessee, co-EIC for the Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management.

* Louise A. Knight, Full Professor at the University of Twente, co-EIC for the Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management.

* Robert D. Klassen; Professor of Operations Management at Ivey Business School, co-EIC for the International Journal of Operations and Production Management

* Constantin Blome, Professor in Operations Management at the University of Sussex Business School, co-EIC for the International Journal of Operations and Production Management

* Beth Davis-Sramek; Gayle Parks Forehand Professor of Supply Chain Management; Auburn University; Co-EIC for Journal of Business Logistics



We also post below some conversations that ensued in the chat for the Zoom session:

09:10:44  From  Ted Farris : Never was "taught" how to review as a doctoral student so developed my own process.  What order do you suggest one conducts a review...red the whole thing through or in pieces and then the whole thing through.  For example, I start with the abstract and then go to the tables and figures (to make sure they stand by themselves), then the references, then the conclusion, then the main text.

09:16:14  From  Ted Farris : Time to conduct a review...how long should it take?

09:17:18  From  Himanshu Shee : It is my work, wondering why can’t I reuse it in my work again. Looks silly but I am still curious to use!!

09:18:56  From  Gina McNally : What is the red flag level for plagiarism checker?

09:19:13  From  Louise KNIGHT : Every article must make an original contribution, so recycling your own work is not considered acceptable

09:20:17  From  Barbara Flynn : We'll talk about the red flag level during the Q&A, but we start getting alarmed as that number approaches 20%.

09:20:22  From  Marika Tuomela-Pyykkönen : What software would you recommend for checking the (self)plagiarism?

09:22:17  From  Louise KNIGHT : Déjà lu: On the limits of data reuse across multiple publications Erik M.van Raaij


09:22:19  From  Ted Farris : I am writing a reprise of a published paper written in 2002 (since so much has changed) and am submitting to the same journal.  What % of the original content is usable?

09:22:24  From  Himanshu Shee : Each journal has a fixed format and empirical study has a kind of fixed writing style. So overlapping of text and methodological context get duplicated easily. Wondering how to rephrase or make different!!

09:26:10  From  Constantin Blome : @Himanshu: There are of course some overlaps in the methodology section. That is to a certain extent okay, but there are many different ways to express also statistics and everybody makes his or her life easier by avoiding copying also in these sections. Having said that copying particularly in the other sections is a no-go, including self-plagiarism.

09:26:51  From  Ted Farris : good tip on authors running a plagiarism checker!  As a reviewer should I assume the editors have done this or should reviewers runs a checker?

09:27:28  From  Barbara Flynn : Yes, our submission systems automatically do this for every submission, and we pay close attention to it.

09:27:32  From  Constantin Blome : @Ted: Most journals run them now.

09:27:52  From  Louise KNIGHT : Editors will run checks but a reviewer should raise any concerns with the editor

09:28:26  From  Barbara Flynn : Yes, it's always appropriate to contact the editor if you have any sort of concerns as a reviewer.

09:29:08  From  Constantin Blome : What editors are often less aware of and where reviewers can do a great job is where similar data has been used before. It is always helpful in case reviewers identify that content-wise (not plagiarism-wise) is similar.

09:30:09  From  Louise KNIGHT : Journals provide guidelines to reviewers. Also check out general advice on reviewing provided by publishers, for example from Elsevier: https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/how-to-review

09:33:49  From  Gina McNally : Should reviewers include their recommendation in the comments to the authors?

09:35:53  From  Constantin Blome : Some journals don't want to have that recommendation included, they make this explicit, but to a certain extent it also provides clarity. However, most important is the constructive feedback, not the recommendation per se, as the AE/ Editor should come up with the conclusion.

09:36:01  From  Louise KNIGHT : For JPSM, we prefer not - you provide the recommendation separately. If it's a difficult call, then add a note to the editor.

09:38:00  From  Himanshu Shee : On average two days will be good I guess…. To read and make the report ready…. Can’t afford more than that!

09:38:35  From  Beth Davis-Sramek : At JBL, it's fine to include your recommendation. I generally start with an "overview" section. In it, I offer positive comments and then say something like, "however, there are some issues that are offered in more detail below that prevent me from recommending that the paper move forward." There can be a "soft" way to communicate a rejection, but I think it's important to provide clarity to the author(s).

09:40:06  From  Ted Farris : at what point as a reviewer is a paper so bad that you stop in the middle and return it to the editor

09:40:06  From  Himanshu Shee : Does the editor engage more than 3 reviewers to reject a paper?

09:40:08  From  Constantin Blome : I agree here. Sometimes it is strange to receive a very friendly review, but then the author writes to the editor that this is a clear reject. It's important to be friendly and constructive, but also authentic. Not easy at all.

09:41:00  From  Constantin Blome : @Ted: I would say, almost never.

09:42:13  From  Beth Davis-Sramek : @Ted: My hope would be that if we send the paper out for review, then it is worth a full review. We will desk reject those that do not meet a minimum quality  threshold.

09:43:37  From  Anníbal Sodero - Ohio State University - Fisher College : I typically read the main paper cited by the paper I am reviewing and usually skim through a couple of other ones. I like to ensure authors are building on the work of others in a "proper" way, that is, that there is no misrepresentation. A common mistake is to cite a work just for the sake of having a reference, while the work actually contradicts what the authors are claiming. It also helps me to understand where the authors are coming from and what is the contribution they are making.

09:44:59  From  Himanshu Shee : What exactly the desk review comprises of, it takes up to a couple of wks even to reject or decide on to put forward to review.

09:48:54  From  Beth Davis-Sramek : @Himanshu: At JBL our goal will be to return a desk-rejected manuscript very quickly. I think two weeks is reasonable.

09:49:16  From  Constantin Blome : At IJOPM desk rejects takes 1-5 days typically. If it takes longer then there is a reason for it (internal discussions on the manuscript etc). I guess 95% are done in 1-5 days. We have two steps: editorial assistant (who is also an academic) and then one of the four EICs.

09:49:22  From  Louise KNIGHT : @Himanshu: Desk reviews vary - sometimes it is very clear that the standard is inadequate or there is not a good fit to the journal. Sometimes a much closer reading is needed, and this reveals that we do not think the paper has a fair prospect

09:49:49  From  Constantin Blome : Interestingly enough we receive then emails from authors asking whether we read the manuscript at all as the turnaround time is fast. Of course, we do;-)

09:51:53  From  Beth Davis-Sramek : HA! - So maybe two weeks isn't reasonable! Good point - some are very clearly desk rejects, and others may require more feedback, especially if we see potential and suggest to authors that they can fix the issues and resubmit.

09:53:26  From  Ted Farris : Are there times of the year when it is best to submit something...are reviewers more available at different times (Christmas Break v middle of a semester)

09:54:08  From  Barbara Flynn : I don't think so, but there are definitely better times for authors - we see seasonality in submissions.  For example, a lot of manuscripts are submitted at the end of the summer, just before classes begin.

09:55:04  From  Constantin Blome : Reviews over July/ August take longer. We also see that in the pandemic reviews slowed down.

09:55:12  From  Ted Farris : A lot of times I comment to the authors about "unsubstantiated conjecture" where they do not support statements or make statements out of the blue.  Reasonable comment to the authors?

09:55:40  From  Barbara Flynn : Definitely.  It's up to authors to make their points clear, not the reviewers and readers to guess.

09:55:45  From  Constantin Blome : absolutely, but always good to give the example and give an example how this could be done better.

09:56:29  From  Constantin Blome : Often the authors aren't aware that statements are not supported, but of course you don't have to list every unsupported sentence.

09:57:07  From  Barbara Flynn : Agreed, it seems obvious to the authors because they are so familiar with the literature, but it's not obvious to others.

09:57:40  From  Beth Davis-Sramek : I might also rephrase it to something like, "you need to provide more evidence from the literature that supports this statement/hypothesis/rationale" etc...

10:02:49  From  Louise KNIGHT : I agree with that suggestion for rephrasing the point!

10:04:27  From  Gina McNally : Can you post the references here in the chat, please? Thanks!

10:04:39  From  Himanshu Shee : What methodology is usually a winner? Survey, interviews, mixed methods, longitudinal studies?

10:04:50  From  jmuniz : Thanks for share the knowledge. Go Vols

10:06:35  From  Constantin Blome : Important is that plagiarism only show "potential plagiarism" and we have to check then whether it is "real plagiarism".

10:07:06  From  Arun Kumar Deshmukh : How much is the tolerable limit of similarity index?

10:07:14  From  Juliette : Thank you for they great tips!

10:07:35  From  Constantin Blome : There is no fixed percentage, but we look in far more detail with 20% or more.

10:07:38  From  Juliette : *the not they

10:08:36  From  Arun Kumar Deshmukh : Thanks Constantin Blome

10:09:39  From  Himanshu Shee : It is so easy to get over 20% plagiarism adding those 1% coming’s from the references, key words and jargons etc…

10:09:50  From  Constantin Blome : However, there are also many papers we still send out that have more than 20% in the software indicated, but it is not showing clear cases of plagiarism. So it depends.

10:10:28  From  Himanshu Shee : Thanks Constantin

10:10:50  From  Constantin Blome : Just to share, the nastiest emails I got from authors were all around plagiarism scores.

10:11:10  From  Barbara Flynn : Huff, A.S., 2009. Evaluation of research design and outcomes. In Huff, A.S., Designing Research for Publication, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Koberg, D. & Bagnall, J., 1976. The Universal Traveler. New York: William Kaufman.

De Bono, E., 1999. Six Thinking Hats. Boston: Little, Brown. Also http://www.edwdebono.com/


10:11:27  From  Wendy Tate : I agree with Constantin re the emails!

10:14:06  From  Louise KNIGHT : A very low (artificially low) score in the plagiarism checker can be a trigger for a closer look.  The tool indicates % recognised text, that's all - the rest is for editors to interpret

10:15:28  From  Arun Kumar Deshmukh : Sometimes we get a paper with a newer method for review. Should we refuse to review it or the other part of the manuscripts should be evaluated without commenting on the method part?

10:15:56  From  Constantin Blome : Personally, I also think that in some institutions PhDs reviews continuously for their supervisors. This would be considered highly unethical.

10:16:45  From  Constantin Blome : I. suggest contact the editor.

10:18:17  From  Arun Kumar Deshmukh : Thanks a lot

10:22:43  From  Ted Farris : the better journals that I review for typically send feedback after all the reviews are in plsace

10:23:04  From  Himanshu Shee : I suppose the journal offers a summary of the all reviews so one can see what others have done vs you

10:23:14  From  marcon.arthur : Is it appropriate to contact the editor when the reviewers were not clear in their review or when they provide contradictory recommendations? For example, contacting the editor via email when we are working on the corrections of the paper

10:23:59  From  Arun Kumar Deshmukh : As an editor, how you decide the fate of manuscripts when two reviewers suggest minor revision and one suggests the rejection?

10:24:03  From  Constantin Blome : yes, this is fine Marcon

10:25:14  From  Barbara Flynn : It's always fine to contact the editor about anything

10:25:24  From  Constantin Blome : @Arun: first, we read the manuscript, but typically AEs would make the call first. But this is not different to any other combination of recommendations.

10:25:48  From  Constantin Blome : I agree with Barb.


Background music:


“Night & Day” by Dee Yan-Key is licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA





0 Favorited
1 Files
mp3 file
2020-08-20-reviewers-workshop.mp3   75.51 MB   1 version
Uploaded - 10-17-2020

Tags and Keywords

Related Entries and Links

No Related Resource entered.