Evolving editorial boards

Abstract

The Editorial Advisory Board (EAB) is a prominent feature of some academic journals. Ostensibly it serves as a collection of people who are given honorary appointments with the remit of providing advice to the Editor in Chief and the journal more generally. Some might see an EAB as a collection of ‘the great and the good’, that is, some of the senior (if not actually senile) and hopefully benevolent academics in the field where the journal is situated. Their presence on the EAB confers some form of respectability, and perhaps the journal is able to borrow or leverage their authority and thus strengthen its own position vis-à-vis its many stakeholders. For instance, potential authors who recognise some of the members of the EAB may be encouraged to submit simply by their presence, that is, ‘if these people choose to be associated with this journal, then the journal must be respectable’.

In practice, the members of EABs are rarely asked for advice, and even when asked do not always provide it. Over the last dozen years or so, I have only asked the Information Systems Journal's (ISJ) EAB for advice on a handful of occasions. As a member of other journals' EABs, I have similarly infrequently been asked myself. When the ISJ was established in 1990, an EAB was created and its composition barely changed over the next 20 years. The original 25 members of the ISJ's EAB were dominated by white male European academics (there was only one female and no other ethnicities), many working at institutions that no longer exist, supplemented with a few white male practitioners. Nineteen of the 25 were in the UK, and two each in Australia, Sweden and the USA. Of the 25, I think that only two are still (more or less) in active harness: the vast majority have retired or, sadly, passed away.

When I was appointed as co-Editor of the ISJ (with Philip Powell and Eileen Trauth), in 2012, we took steps to revitalise the EAB, and further changes took place when I assumed sole Editor-in-Chiefship in 2017. We wanted to see a better gender and ethnic balance. We also attempted to persuade some of the longer-serving but no longer active members to step down, yet several steadfastly refused to do so. In the end, the grim reaper of time took its toll and when these people passed away so they stepped down. The newly constituted EAB had 38 members, with 17 Female and 21 Male, 28 White, 2 Black, 8 Asian (including Burmese, Chinese, Indian, and Korean), working in USA (14), Australia (6), United Kingdom (3), Canada (2), Finland (2), and one each in China, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Africa and South Korea. Unfortunately, there were no practitioner members of the new EAB.

However, as a journal comes into its maturity, I suggest that the instrumental need for and the value of an EAB steadily diminishes. When it can stand on its own feet it really does not need a senior board of benevolent scholars to prop it up or to lend it respectability. Thus, in early 2024 I wrote to all 38 members of the EAB to thank them for their many years of service, but also to announce the dissolution of the EAB as an entity. A month later, only four have replied to that email, saying how much they had enjoyed being members but agreeing that dissolution is the right step to take at this stage. Perhaps this is no more than housekeeping, but it seems to represent an important step for the journal (for any journal). I won't dwell unduly on the status of the ISJ, but I feel that it has a clear reputation in the field for the quality of the scholarship that it publishes, for the constructiveness of the review process, and for the dedication of the people who work for it, notably as senior and associate editors (SEs and AEs). At the ISJ, we have created a particular niche that attracts submissions that are recognisable as ‘in scope’ for the journal. Like any journal, we also get submissions that are clearly out of scope, for various reasons. We have discussed these situations in various editorials in recent years. Indeed, these editorials are one of the hallmarks of the journal, and as a matter of policy, all such editorials are freely available on the journal's website.1 There is much to be justifiably proud of, and it is in this light that the need for an EAB has been assessed as no longer present.

Meanwhile, we have created not as a replacement but as a separate entity, a new editorial board at the ISJ, this time of reviewers: an editorial review board (ERB). Our purpose here is to give due recognition to the people who regularly review for the journal, and do so at high levels of quality. These ERB members have all been nominated by current SEs and AEs. All have reviewed for the ISJ previously and many have also published in the journal. I expect that the list of members will grow organically, that is, as more people engage in high-quality review work for the journal. Indeed, it is worth noting that a key problem in recent years has been how to find two competent and willing people who can undertake a high quality and constructive review within a fixed time period. It may sound ridiculous, but it is not unusual to be in the situation where we have to invite 10, 15 or even 20 people to review a manuscript, simply in order to secure two who do so. A few promise but fail to deliver. Most of those whom we invite ignore our request, even though these same people are eager to submit their work for consideration of publication. We hope that an ERB will in some way help us to tackle this pressing problem, since ERB members who agree to serve in this role are also committing to support the journal by undertaking reviews. Naturally we do not want to overburden these people with excessive numbers of review requests, and in any case it would not be healthy for too many reviews to be undertaken by too few people, but as the ERB grows in size, so it may prove to be a most efficacious source of help. Our emerging ERB is diverse in terms of gender, location, and topic. For instance, at the time of writing (February, 2024) it comprises 35 people who work in 14 countries in all three AIS regions. I expect these numbers to grow. We have also received enquiries from scholars keen to join the ERB, yet a careful check of their particulars reveals that they have neither submitted their own work to the journal nor ever reviewed for it. Alas, these are not (yet) the scholars whom we hope to recognise.

Finally, our regular SEs and AEs continue to make exemplary contributions to the journal. Several AEs were promoted to SE in early 2024, and while a few stepped down, several new AEs were appointed. A complete list of SEs and AEs is here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/13652575/homepage/editorialboard.html. Additional information that lists their keywords indicating their areas of expertise/competence can be found here: https://www.isj-editors.org/?page_id=778 (SEs) and here https://www.isj-editors.org/?page_id=746 (AEs). Demographically, the 27 SEs and 46 AEs are 32% female, 68% male, and are currently situated in 18 countries/territories: United Kingdom (15), USA (13), Australia (10), China (6), Germany (6), Norway (4), Denmark (3), Canada (2), France (2), Hong Kong (2), Spain (2), Switzerland (2), and one each in Austria, Brazil, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. Ethnically, they are equally diverse. I list these figures here to update the editorial on diversity (Davison, 2021), published 3 years ago. Moving forward, I expect that the diversity of people within the journal will be maintained and indeed increase. Information Systems is a diverse community that deserves a diversity of representation in our premier journals.