[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ fullwidth=”on” _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_fullwidth_image src=”https:\/\/bledconference.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/Pasica-Bled.jpg” title_text=”Pasica Bled” _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_fullwidth_image][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”4.27.4″ background_color=”rgba(141,195,233,0.1)” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.27.0″ _module_preset=”default” background_color=”#ffffff” custom_margin=”-80px||||false|false” custom_padding=”|2em||2em|false|false” border_radii=”on|0.5em|0.5em|0.5em|0.5em” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.27.0″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_heading title=”THE BLED CONFERENCE GUIDELINES FOR PAPER REVIWERS” _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” title_font=”|600|||||||” custom_margin=”||4px|||” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_heading][et_pb_divider color=”#0d72ba” divider_weight=”3px” _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” width=”83%” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_divider][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
Author:\u00a0<\/span>Roger Clarke<\/a><\/strong> Available under an\u00a0AEShareNet<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0licence or a\u00a0Creative Commons<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0licence.<\/p>\n Version of 31 July 2007<\/a>\u00a0<\/span>(available at:\u00a0<\/span>http:\/\/www.rogerclarke.com\/EC\/BledRevGuide.html<\/a>)<\/p>\n The quality of reviews is very important to any conference community. The Bled Conference benefits from the efforts of c. 200 people who review papers each year. Although the conference is fortunate in having such a large community of committed scholars, and the quality of reviews is generally high, it is important that the quality be sustained and where necessary improved.<\/p>\n So reviewers are requested to ensure that their reviews reflect the guidance provided in this document.<\/p>\n The purpose of reviewing a paper is to assure quality, in both the negative sense of filtering out low-quality papers, and the positive sense of encouraging the Author(s) to deliver a better version of the paper in question, and better papers in the future.<\/p>\n What represents \u2018quality\u2019 differs between journals and conferences, and between conferences. The Bled community is special, because it comprises both academics and practitioners. The community wants contributions that make a difference, and whose significance they can grasp.<\/p>\n In short, the Bled Community is interested in papers that satisfy the following all-too-rare quality factors (bad wordplay intended):<\/p>\n In brief, the Program Chair, the paper\u2019s Author(s), and the Bled Conference Community.<\/p>\n The foreground purpose is to provide the Program Chair with information about the paper\u2019s qualities, and its acceptability for the conference. The background purpose is to inform the Author(s) what needs to be done to improve the paper. All members of the Bled Community stand to gain from a professional approach to reviewing, because it enhances the quality of the papers that get accepted into the Program.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_divider color=”#000000″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”||-1px|||” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_divider][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Here are the key characteristics of a review that meets the needs of the Program Chair, the Author(s) and the Bled Conference Community alike:<\/p>\n 1. Demonstrated Understanding of the Paper<\/strong>. Briefly summarise the paper, or convey by other means that you\u2019ve grasped what the author was trying to do. If the readers of a review aren\u2019t satisfied that the reviewer understood the paper, they will de-value the comments<\/p>\n 2. Positive Features of the Paper<\/strong>. This should be brief, but it should be present. Criticism is more likely to be effective if it is cushioned by some recognition of the author\u2019s worth. It\u2019s unusual for a paper to reach a reviewer without at least some redeeming features<\/p>\n 3. Critique, Expressed Constructively<\/strong>. This is the central feature: a good review must lead somewhere. The Program Chair needs to make a decision; and the Author needs suggestions about what they can do about the features the reviewer doesn\u2019t like. If your opinion is that the paper isn\u2019t appropriate for Bled, is there some other venue where it might find a home? Or are there steps that the author could take to improve their chances next time they submit a paper?<\/p>\n 4. Value-Add<\/strong>. Performing a review is an act of collaboration, not competition. In addition to identifying and helping to eradicate inadequacies, offer additional perspectives and references<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_divider color=”#000000″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”||-1px|||” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_divider][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Here are some traps that reviewers need to avoid. The first few are corollaries of the four quality indicators discussed above:<\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0Don\u2019t be vague about the paper\u2019s weaknesses<\/strong>. It helps neither the Program Chair nor the Author to say that \u2018this paper makes too limited a contribution to be considered for this venue\u2019, \u2018the method is weak\u2019, \u2018the literature search is too narrow\u2019, or \u2018the implications are insufficiently developed\u2019. Comments need to be specific, and supported by evidence<\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0Don\u2019t be emotive, aggressive, sarcastic or demeaning<\/strong>. This shakes the confidence of junior or otherwise insecure authors, and in any case reduces the effectiveness of the advice provided<\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0Don\u2019t criticise without \u2018actionable advice\u2019<\/strong>. This term is Allen Lee\u2019s. He argues that a criticism shouldn\u2019t even be made unless it includes a suggestion about what might be done about it<\/p>\n Other issues are ethical in nature:<\/p>\n \u2022 Don’t delegate to a junior colleague or a student<\/strong> unless you are warranting to the Program Chair that the person is an appropriate reviewer, and that person submits in their own name (whether or not you review the draft prior to completion).<\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0Don\u2019t fail to declare a conflict of interest<\/strong>. Examples include an association with the research reported on, or with one of the authors of the paper. (This need not disqualify you from doing the review; but the relationship needs to be known)<\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0Don\u2019t fail to declare the limits of your expertise<\/strong>. A partial lack of expertise (e.g. limited knowledge of the research domain\u00a0or\u00a0the specific sub-area\u00a0or\u00a0the particular research method) does not disqualify you from doing the review (otherwise some papers would never find a reviewer!). But the scope of the problem needs to be declared to the Program Chair and Author(s) alike<\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0Don\u2019t take premature advantage of content<\/strong>. Prior to publication, don\u2019t provide copies to a colleague or student who works in the same area (unless you approach the Program Chair and get the Author\u2019s consent to early distribution)<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_divider color=”#000000″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”||-1px|||” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_divider][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_divider color=”#000000″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”||-1px|||” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_divider][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Directly relevant articles and notes from within the IS discipline include:<\/p>\n Bieber M. (1997)\u00a0\u2018How to Review\u2019<\/p>\n Davison R.M., de Vreede G-J. & Briggs R.O. (2006)\u00a0\u2018On Peer Review Standards For The Information Systems Literature\u2019\u00a0Commun. AIS 16, 49 (2005) 967-980<\/p>\n Drawing on the literature, Davison et al. (2006, p. 15) identifies attributes of a good reviewer as being humaneness, competence, openness, unbiassedness and absence of prejudice, ethicality, timeliness, persuasiveness and diligence<\/p>\n Koh C. (2003) \u2018IS journal review process: a survey on IS research practices and journal review issues\u2019 Infor. & Mngt 40 (2003) 743\u2013756<\/p>\n Lee A.S. (1995)\u00a0\u2018Reviewing a Manuscript for Publication\u2019\u00a0Invited Note in J. Ops Mngt 13, 1 (July 1995) 87-92<\/p>\n Zmud R. (1998)\u00a0\u2018A Personal Perspective on the State of Journal Refereeing\u2019\u00a0MIS Qtly 22, 2 (September 1998)<\/p>\n A couple of relevant publications from other disciplines are:<\/p>\n Black N., van Rooyen S., Godlee F., Smith R. & Evans S. (1998) \u2018What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal\u2019 J. Am. Med. Assoc. 280, 3 (1998) 231-233<\/p>\n Finney D.J. (1997) \u2018The Responsible Referee\u2019 Biometrics 53, 2 (June 1997) 715-719<\/p>\n Hames I. (2007) \u2018Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals\u2019 Blackwell\/ALPSP, 2007, from\u00a0Blackwells<\/p>\n Smith, A.J. (1990)\u00a0\u00a0\u2018The task of the referee\u2019 IEEE Computer 23,\u00a04 (April 1990) 65-71<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Author:\u00a0Roger ClarkePrepared for the\u00a019th Bled eCommerce Conference\u00a05-7 June 2006, when presenting the\u00a0Outstanding Paper Award\u00a9 Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, 2006 Available under an\u00a0AEShareNet\u00a0\u00a0licence or a\u00a0Creative Commons\u00a0\u00a0licence. Version of 31 July 2007\u00a0(available at:\u00a0http:\/\/www.rogerclarke.com\/EC\/BledRevGuide.html) Introduction The quality of reviews is very important to any conference community. The Bled Conference benefits from the efforts of c. 200 people who […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Author: Roger Clarke<\/a><\/strong> Available under an AEShareNet<\/a> licence or a Creative Commons<\/a> licence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Version of 31 July 2007<\/a> (available at: http:\/\/www.rogerclarke.com\/EC\/BledRevGuide.html<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n The quality of reviews is very important to any conference community. The Bled Conference benefits from the efforts of c. 200 people who review papers each year. Although the conference is fortunate in having such a large community of committed scholars, and the quality of reviews is generally high, it is important that the quality be sustained and where necessary improved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So reviewers are requested to ensure that their reviews reflect the guidance provided in this document.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The purpose of reviewing a paper is to assure quality, in both the negative sense of filtering out low-quality papers, and the positive sense of encouraging the Author(s) to deliver a better version of the paper in question, and better papers in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What represents 'quality' differs between journals and conferences, and between conferences. The Bled community is special, because it comprises both academics and practitioners. The community wants contributions that make a difference, and whose significance they can grasp.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In short, the Bled Community is interested in papers that satisfy the following all-too-rare quality factors (bad wordplay intended):<\/p>\n\n\n\n In brief, the Program Chair, the paper's Author(s), and the Bled Conference Community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The foreground purpose is to provide the Program Chair with information about the paper's qualities, and its acceptability for the conference. The background purpose is to inform the Author(s) what needs to be done to improve the paper. All members of the Bled Community stand to gain from a professional approach to reviewing, because it enhances the quality of the papers that get accepted into the Program.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here are the key characteristics of a review that meets the needs of the Program Chair, the Author(s) and the Bled Conference Community alike:<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1. Demonstrated Understanding of the Paper<\/strong>. Briefly summarise the paper, or convey by other means that you've grasped what the author was trying to do. If the readers of a review aren't satisfied that the reviewer understood the paper, they will de-value the comments<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2. Positive Features of the Paper<\/strong>. This should be brief, but it should be present. Criticism is more likely to be effective if it is cushioned by some recognition of the author's worth. It's unusual for a paper to reach a reviewer without at least some redeeming features<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3. Critique, Expressed Constructively<\/strong>. This is the central feature: a good review must lead somewhere. The Program Chair needs to make a decision; and the Author needs suggestions about what they can do about the features the reviewer doesn't like. If your opinion is that the paper isn't appropriate for Bled, is there some other venue where it might find a home? Or are there steps that the author could take to improve their chances next time they submit a paper?<\/p>\n\n\n\n 4. Value-Add<\/strong>. Performing a review is an act of collaboration, not competition. In addition to identifying and helping to eradicate inadequacies, offer additional perspectives and references<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here are some traps that reviewers need to avoid. The first few are corollaries of the four quality indicators discussed above:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 Don't be vague about the paper's weaknesses<\/strong>. It helps neither the Program Chair nor the Author to say that 'this paper makes too limited a contribution to be considered for this venue', 'the method is weak', 'the literature search is too narrow', or 'the implications are insufficiently developed'. Comments need to be specific, and supported by evidence<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 Don't be emotive, aggressive, sarcastic or demeaning<\/strong>. This shakes the confidence of junior or otherwise insecure authors, and in any case reduces the effectiveness of the advice provided<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 Don't criticise without 'actionable advice'<\/strong>. This term is Allen Lee's. He argues that a criticism shouldn't even be made unless it includes a suggestion about what might be done about it<\/p>\n\n\n\n Other issues are ethical in nature:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 Don't delegate unless you exercise control over the quality of the review<\/strong>. It is unfair to the Program Chair and the Author(s) to assign the task to a junior colleague or a student, unless you review their draft comments and the paper itself, adapt the draft as necessary, and take personal responsibility for the review that is submitted in your name<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 Don't fail to declare a conflict of interest<\/strong>. Examples include an association with the research reported on, or with one of the authors of the paper. (This need not disqualify you from doing the review; but the relationship needs to be known)<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 Don't fail to declare the limits of your expertise<\/strong>. A partial lack of expertise (e.g. limited knowledge of the research domain or the specific sub-area or the particular research method) does not disqualify you from doing the review (otherwise some papers would never find a reviewer!). But the scope of the problem needs to be declared to the Program Chair and Author(s) alike<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 Don't take premature advantage of content<\/strong>. Prior to publication, don't provide copies to a colleague or student who works in the same area (unless you approach the Program Chair and get the Author's consent to early distribution)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Directly relevant articles and notes from within the IS discipline include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bieber M. (1997) 'How to Review'<\/p>\n\n\n\n Davison R.M., de Vreede G-J. & Briggs R.O. (2006) 'On Peer Review Standards For The Information Systems Literature' Commun. AIS 16, 49 (2005) 967-980<\/p>\n\n\n\n Drawing on the literature, Davison et al. (2006, p. 15) identifies attributes of a good reviewer as being humaneness, competence, openness, unbiassedness and absence of prejudice, ethicality, timeliness, persuasiveness and diligence<\/p>\n\n\n\n Koh C. (2003) 'IS journal review process: a survey on IS research practices and journal review issues' Infor. & Mngt 40 (2003) 743\u2013756<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lee A.S. (1995) 'Reviewing a Manuscript for Publication' Invited Note in J. Ops Mngt 13, 1 (July 1995) 87-92<\/p>\n\n\n\n Zmud R. (1998) 'A Personal Perspective on the State of Journal Refereeing' MIS Qtly 22, 2 (September 1998)<\/p>\n\n\n\n A couple of relevant publications from other disciplines are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Black N., van Rooyen S., Godlee F., Smith R. & Evans S. (1998) 'What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal' J. Am. Med. Assoc. 280, 3 (1998) 231-233<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finney D.J. (1997) 'The Responsible Referee' Biometrics 53, 2 (June 1997) 715-719<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hames I. (2007) 'Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals' Blackwell\/ALPSP, 2007, from Blackwells<\/p>\n\n\n\n Smith, A.J. (1990) 'The task of the referee' IEEE Computer 23, 4 (April 1990) 65-71
Prepared for the\u00a019th Bled eCommerce Conference\u00a05-7 June 2006, when presenting the\u00a0Outstanding Paper Award
\u00a9 Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd<\/a>, 2006<\/p>\nIntroduction<\/h3>\n
The Function of Reviewing<\/h3>\n
\n\n
\n R\u00a0elevance<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n A\u00a0mbition<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n R\u00a0igour<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n E\u00a0ase of Access<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n <\/h3>\n
Who is the Reviewer Working For?<\/h3>\n
Indicators of Quality in a Review<\/h3>\n
What Not To Do<\/h3>\n
Some Examples of Good and Bad Content in Reviews<\/h3>\n
Bad<\/h3>\n
\n
Good<\/h3>\n
\n
Bibliography<\/h3>\n
The Bled Conference Guidelines for Paper Reviewers<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Prepared for the\u00a019th Bled eCommerce Conference\u00a05-7 June 2006, when presenting the\u00a0Outstanding Paper Award
\u00a9 Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd<\/a>, 2006<\/p>\n\n\n\nIntroduction<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The Function of Reviewing<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
R elevance<\/td><\/tr> A mbition<\/td><\/tr> R igour<\/td><\/tr> E ase of Access<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n Who is the Reviewer Working For?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nIndicators of Quality in a Review<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nWhat Not To Do<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nSome Examples of Good and Bad Content in Reviews<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Bad<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Good<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nBibliography<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","_et_gb_content_width":"","_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1192","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/arhiv.fov.um.si\/ebled2025\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1192","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/arhiv.fov.um.si\/ebled2025\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/arhiv.fov.um.si\/ebled2025\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arhiv.fov.um.si\/ebled2025\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arhiv.fov.um.si\/ebled2025\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1192"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/arhiv.fov.um.si\/ebled2025\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1192\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5556,"href":"https:\/\/arhiv.fov.um.si\/ebled2025\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1192\/revisions\/5556"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/arhiv.fov.um.si\/ebled2025\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1192"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}