We have also intensified our prescreen of initial submissions. We are sending less papers out for review while giving authors quick value-adding feedback. Although some were rejected, other authors were given suggestions intended to improve the paper's potential for the first official round of reviewing. Some authors may find this outcome to be disappointing, but only a few weeks of valuable time will have been expended. The single area where we can generate the most cycle time improvement is in the review process itself.
Information systems competes with other disciplines, both within the business school and university.
We, therefore, must become impassioned about turning referee and associate editor reports around quickly. Reviews are more than service opportunities, they are the lubricant that determines whether our discipline functions efficiently. At the Quarterly , we will continue to tighten our own review tracking system while establishing high expectations for our editorial board and ourselves for further reductions in cycle time. To make our goal, authors will have to share responsibility for compressing their own process cycle time. Further reductions may require a deeper look at the underlying assumptions.