Many call for a change in the reviewing process in Computer Science, make it more open for discussion, better feedback. So after receiving such useless reviews for my HICSS conference submission I decided to post them here in my blog:
Review A : which basically just provides the reject decision, but otherwise only a single “recommendation” to highlight contributions to academia and practice.
The authors present an innovative way of looking at collaboration patterns. Please proof read the manuscript for spelling errors. Consider further strengthening the paper by highlighting contributions to academia and practice.
Thank you for submitting your paper to our HICSS minitrack. There were many fine papers this year. Unfortunately, we are only able to accept the top six paper of which yours was not one of this year.
I would encourage you to consider us again next year
Review B:
The topic is very interesting but there is no research method. The contribution of this paper is to present the idea of mapping architectural styles and collaboration patterns. This paper is appropriate for the conference proceedings but may be weak for publication in a journal. The authors should use a research design to validate their mapping idea.
To be complete, I also post the mini-track description from the HICSS website here:
Topics in Organizational Systems and Technology
This minitrack is especially set up to provide a forum for papers in the Organizational Systems and Technology track that do not “fit” exactly in a specific other minitrack. We are proud to often serve as an incubator for new ideas. Over the years we have actively solicited non-traditional, imaginative, and thought-provoking research in any IT area. We are particularly interested in papers that break new ground in new areas, or those that apply existing research to new industry groups or fields.
Considering this, can you really take such comments seriously?! Well, definitely not the invitation to submit again to this mini-track.
