Earticle

초록

영어

As the common saying attests, a publish-or-perish world, publishing is absolutely critical for academic re-searchers' successful careers. It is the most objectively-accepted academic performance criteria and the most viable way to attain public and academic recognition.Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems(APJIS) has been recognized as the most influential domestic journal in Korean MIS field since July, 1991. Therefore, publishing in APJIS means your research is original, valid, and contributive. While most researchers learn how to publish an article in APJIS through a repetitive review process, thereby improving their chance of the 'accepted' through their personal trial and error experi-ences, such valuable lessons and know-how tend to be kept personally and rarely shared. However, useful insights into research and publication skills could be also gained from sharing others’ errors, neglect, and misjudgments which are equally critical in improving researchers’ knowledge in the field (Murthy and Wiggins, 2002). For this reason, other academic disciplines make systematic efforts to examine the paper review process of major journals and share the findings from these studies with the rest of the research community members (Beyer et al., 1995; Cummings et al, 1985; Daft, 1995; Jauch and Wall, 1989; Murthy and Wiggins, 2002). Recognizing the urgent need to provide such type of information to MIS research community in Korea, we have chosen the most influential academic journal, APJIS with an intention to share the answer to the following research question: "What are the common problems found in the manuscripts either 'rejected' or 'required a major revision' by APJIS reviewers?"This study analyzes the review results of manuscripts submitted to APJIS (from January, 2006 to October, 2008), particularly those that were ‘rejected’ or required a ‘major revision’ at the first round. Based on Daft's(1995) study, twelve most-likelihood problems were defined and used to analyze the reviews. The twelve criteria for classification, or "twelve problems", are as follows: No theory, Concepts and operationalization not in alignment, Insufficient definition--theory, Insufficient rationale--design, Macrostructure--organization and flow, Amateur style and tone, Inadequate research design, Not relevant to the field, Overengineering, Conclusions not in alignment, Cutting up the data, and Poor editorial practice.Upon the approval of the editorial board of APJIS, the total 252 reviews, including 11 cases of 2005 and 241 cases from July, 2006 to October, 2008, were received without any information about manuscripts, authors, or reviewers. Eleven cases of 2005 were used in the pilot test because the data of 2005 were not in complete enumeration, and the 241 reviews (113 cases of 'rejection' and 128 ones of 'major revision') of 2006, 2007, and 2008 were examined in this study.Our findings show that insufficient rationale--design(20.25%), no theory(18.45%), and insufficient defi-nition--theory(15.69%) were the three leading reasons of 'rejection' and 'major revision.' Between these two results, the former followed the same order of three major reasons as an overall analysis (insufficient ration-ale--design, no theory, and insufficient definition--theory), but the latter followed the order of insufficient ration-ale--design, insufficient definition--theory, and no theory.Using Daft's three major skills-- 'theory skills', 'design skills', and 'communication skills'-- twelve criteria were reclassified into 'theory problems', 'design problems', and 'communication problems' to derive more practical implications of our findings. Our findings show that 'theory problems' occupied 43.48%, 'design prob-lems' were 30.86%, and 'communication problems' were 25.86%. In general, the APJIS reviewers weigh each of these three problem areas almost equally. Comparing to other disciplines like management field shown in Daft's study, the portion of 'design problems' and 'communication problems' are much higher in manuscripts submitted to the APJIS than in those of Administrative Science Quarterly and Academy of Management Journal even though 'theory problems' are the most predominant in both disciplines.

목차

abstract
 Ⅰ. 서 론
 Ⅱ. 분류 기준
  2.1 이론적 타당성 부족
  2.2 변수와 측정도구의 불일치
  2.3 이론과 개념에 대한 설명이나 문헌연구부족
  2.4 연구 설계의 논리 부족
  2.5 전체 구성이나 흐름의 문제
  2.6 비전문적인 문체나 표현
  2.7 부적합한 연구방법론 적용
  2.8 새로운 공헌이 없어 우리 분야에 맞지않는 연구
  2.9 과도하게 복잡한 통계 기법 사용
  2.10 연구와 결론의 불일치
  2.11 데이터 재사용
  2.12 문법 오류나 오ㆍ탈자 등의 편집상부주의
 Ⅲ. 연구 방법 및 결과
 Ⅳ. 결론 및 시사점
 
 About the Authors

저자

• 이중정 [ Choong C. Lee | Professor, Graduate School of Information, Yonsei University ] Corresponding author
• 윤혜정 [ Haejung Yun | Graduate School of Information, Yonsei University ]
• 황성훈 [ Seong-Hoon Hwang | Graduate School of Information, Yonsei University ]

참고문헌