The ethics of extended revisions

Davison, Robert M.

doi:10.1111/isj.12175

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this case, editors are deliberately extending the review process well beyond acceptable time limits (see, e.g., Davison, 2018). They may give reviewers an excessive amount of time to provide feedback, or they may take an unusually long time to provide their own editorial assessments.…”

Section: Allowing Excessive Delaysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethics II: Editorial conduct

Eckhardt,

Breidbach

2023

Information Systems Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research misconduct remains a controversial topic and the numbers are staggering. Retractionwatch.com 1 reported that, in 2002, 119 papers were retracted by scientific journals. Some 20 years later, this figure has grown to almost 5000. Put differently, about 8 in 10 000 published papers are retracted from the scientific literature today. The case of Francesca Gino at Harvard University is yet another example. At the time of writing this Editorial, she stands accused of fabricating results across multiple studies, including at least one purporting to show how to elicit honest behaviour (Scheiber, 2023). Of course, all this comes at a time when the Information Systems discipline discusses the implications of generative AI in the research process (Davison et al., 2023).Against this backdrop, we note that our discipline has a solid track-record of addressing ethical research conduct, with Davison and Chatterjee ( 2024) describing some concerns we should be aware of in a recent Editorial for the Information Systems Journal. In contrast, the debate pertaining to potential misconduct by editors or reviewers is significantly less developed, with just a few examples aimed at mitigating the shortcomings of the peer review

show abstract

Section: Allowing Excessive Delaysmentioning

confidence: 99%