Review Process (isr-review-process)
When to trigger
- You want to know what happens after you submit to ISR
- A decision letter arrived and you need to read it correctly before responding
- You are unsure who the "SE" and "AE" are and what each controls
- You want to set realistic expectations for rounds and timelines
How ISR routes and reviews a paper
ISR uses an INFORMS-style Senior-Editor-led process, not departmental area editors:
- EIC fit gate. The Editor-in-Chief (currently Suprateek Sarker) makes an initial editorial fit assessment against ISR's sociotechnical, intradisciplinary mission. Papers that are off-fit (single-paradigm with no IS contribution, IT-as-wallpaper, or a generic reference-discipline paper) can be returned here — which is exactly why the ~500-word contribution statement in your cover letter is read first.
- Senior Editor (SE). A fitting paper is assigned to a Senior Editor who owns the paper and ultimately makes the final decision.
- Associate Editor (AE). The SE works with an Associate Editor, who solicits 2-3 reviewers and integrates their recommendations.
- Reviewers. Provide detailed assessments under double-anonymized review.
Understand the hierarchy when you read the letter: reviewers advise, the AE synthesizes, and the SE decides. The SE's letter is the one that defines what must change.
Reading the decision letter
- Identify the decisive voice. Weight the SE's framing most; it tells you which reviewer points are binding versus optional.
- Separate "fit/contribution" objections from "execution" objections. A challenge to the IS contribution or the intradisciplinary framing is more fundamental than a request for another robustness check.
- Map comments to genre. Analytical reviewers probe assumptions and proof completeness; behavioral reviewers probe identification, validity, and CMB; design-science reviewers probe evaluation rigor. Multimethod papers draw all three — expect the SE to ask how the methods integrate (per the 2025 ISR 36(2) framework).
- Note the verdict. Reject, major revision, or (rarely) minor revision; first-round accepts are essentially unheard of.
Decision-letter ledger
Build a short ledger before routing to isr-rebuttal. ISR letters often mix contribution, theory,
method, and electronic-companion requests; a flat checklist hides which point controls the next
round. Use these rows:
| Row |
What to record |
Why it matters at ISR |
| SE priority |
The one or two issues the SE names as decisive |
The SE owns the final recommendation and adjudicates reviewer conflict. |
| IS contribution risk |
Whether the paper still reads as IS theory, intradisciplinary IS, or only a reference-discipline exercise |
Fit concerns outrank additional robustness because they can trigger a reject even after new analyses. |
| Genre of evidence |
Analytical proof, behavioral identification, design-science evaluation, or multimethod integration |
The right fix depends on genre; adding a regression does not answer an analytical proof gap. |
| Space route |
Main text versus electronic companion |
ISR page limits require proofs, measurement detail, and long robustness to be placed deliberately. |
The output should be a priority order, not a complete response letter. If two reviewers disagree,
write the disagreement in the ledger and attach it to the SE priority rather than averaging their
requests.
Set expectations
ISR review is developmental and multi-round; timelines vary. Treat an R&R as an invitation to a conversation with the SE, not a checklist to clear mechanically.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Treating all reviewers equally and missing the SE's binding priorities.
- Answering execution nits while ignoring a contribution/fit challenge.
- Assuming an R&R is acceptance; the SE can still reject after revision.
Output format
【Verdict】reject / major / minor
【Decisive voice】SE priorities: [...]
【Fit/contribution objections】[...]
【Execution objections by genre】[...]
【Multimethod-integration asks】[...]
【Next step】isr-rebuttal
1---2name: isr-review-process3description: Use to understand how Information Systems Research (ISR) handles a submission — the EIC fit gate, the Senior-Editor-led process with an Associate Editor and reviewers, double-anonymized review, and how to read an ISR decision letter. Sets expectations and interprets letters; it does not draft the response (isr-rebuttal).4---56# Review Process (isr-review-process)78## When to trigger910- You want to know what happens after you submit to ISR11- A decision letter arrived and you need to read it correctly before responding12- You are unsure who the "SE" and "AE" are and what each controls13- You want to set realistic expectations for rounds and timelines1415## How ISR routes and reviews a paper1617ISR uses an INFORMS-style **Senior-Editor-led** process, not departmental area editors:18191. **EIC fit gate.** The Editor-in-Chief (currently Suprateek Sarker) makes an initial **editorial fit** assessment against ISR's sociotechnical, intradisciplinary mission. Papers that are off-fit (single-paradigm with no IS contribution, IT-as-wallpaper, or a generic reference-discipline paper) can be returned here — which is exactly why the **~500-word contribution statement** in your cover letter is read first.202. **Senior Editor (SE).** A fitting paper is assigned to a **Senior Editor** who owns the paper and ultimately makes the **final decision**.213. **Associate Editor (AE).** The SE works with an **Associate Editor**, who solicits **2-3 reviewers** and integrates their recommendations.224. **Reviewers.** Provide detailed assessments under **double-anonymized** review.2324Understand the hierarchy when you read the letter: reviewers advise, the AE synthesizes, and the **SE decides**. The SE's letter is the one that defines what must change.2526## Reading the decision letter2728- **Identify the decisive voice.** Weight the **SE's** framing most; it tells you which reviewer points are binding versus optional.29- **Separate "fit/contribution" objections from "execution" objections.** A challenge to the IS contribution or the intradisciplinary framing is more fundamental than a request for another robustness check.30- **Map comments to genre.** Analytical reviewers probe assumptions and proof completeness; behavioral reviewers probe identification, validity, and CMB; design-science reviewers probe evaluation rigor. Multimethod papers draw all three — expect the SE to ask how the methods integrate (per the 2025 ISR 36(2) framework).31- **Note the verdict.** Reject, major revision, or (rarely) minor revision; first-round accepts are essentially unheard of.3233## Decision-letter ledger3435Build a short ledger before routing to `isr-rebuttal`. ISR letters often mix contribution, theory,36method, and electronic-companion requests; a flat checklist hides which point controls the next37round. Use these rows:3839| Row | What to record | Why it matters at ISR |40|-----|----------------|-----------------------|41| SE priority | The one or two issues the SE names as decisive | The SE owns the final recommendation and adjudicates reviewer conflict. |42| IS contribution risk | Whether the paper still reads as IS theory, intradisciplinary IS, or only a reference-discipline exercise | Fit concerns outrank additional robustness because they can trigger a reject even after new analyses. |43| Genre of evidence | Analytical proof, behavioral identification, design-science evaluation, or multimethod integration | The right fix depends on genre; adding a regression does not answer an analytical proof gap. |44| Space route | Main text versus electronic companion | ISR page limits require proofs, measurement detail, and long robustness to be placed deliberately. |4546The output should be a priority order, not a complete response letter. If two reviewers disagree,47write the disagreement in the ledger and attach it to the SE priority rather than averaging their48requests.4950## Set expectations5152ISR review is developmental and multi-round; timelines vary. Treat an R&R as an invitation to a conversation with the SE, not a checklist to clear mechanically.5354## Checklist5556- [ ] Decisive voice (SE) identified and weighted above individual reviewers57- [ ] Fit/contribution objections separated from execution objections58- [ ] Comments mapped to genre (assumptions / identification / evaluation)59- [ ] Multimethod-integration concerns noted if applicable60- [ ] Verdict and what it permits understood before drafting a response6162## Anti-patterns6364- **Treating all reviewers equally** and missing the SE's binding priorities.65- **Answering execution nits** while ignoring a contribution/fit challenge.66- **Assuming an R&R is acceptance**; the SE can still reject after revision.6768## Output format6970```71【Verdict】reject / major / minor72【Decisive voice】SE priorities: [...]73【Fit/contribution objections】[...]74【Execution objections by genre】[...]75【Multimethod-integration asks】[...]76【Next step】isr-rebuttal77```
brycewang-stanford