Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are fundamental in maintaining the quality, rigor, and credibility of iSys – Journal of Information Systems. We depend on the voluntary work of our reviewers to provide constructive, fair, and timely evaluations.

If you are interested in joining iSys as an ad-hoc reviewer, please complete the Reviewer Registration Form.

Guaranteeing a transparent and rigorous process is our priority. In addition, iSys is committed to educating and supporting reviewers, authors, and editors toward more critical, ethical, and inclusive practices.

When accepting a review assignment, you are expected to:

  • Please carefully read and ensure compliance with the Reviewer Guidelines.
  • Declare conflicts of interest: Decline if you have professional, financial, personal, or institutional conflicts with the authors or their work.
  • Maintain confidentiality: Do not share or use any information from the manuscript. Uploading manuscripts into AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Copilot, Grammarly, etc.) is strictly prohibited. If you use AI to draft parts of your review (e.g., grammar polishing), this must be disclosed to the editor.
  • Respect double-blind review: Do not attempt to identify authors. Evaluate the research, not the researchers.
  • Be timely: Accept reviews only if you can meet the deadline. If you cannot, decline promptly so another reviewer can be assigned.
  • Be constructive: Reviews should help authors improve their work, even when recommending rejection. Many submissions come from students and early-career researchers who benefit from respectful, educational feedback.
  • Be inclusive: Recognize diverse methodologies, epistemologies, and regional contributions. Avoid undervaluing research because of geography, language, or theoretical tradition.

Review Form and Evaluation Criteria

You will be asked to complete a structured review form covering the following dimensions:

1. Paper summary, strenghts, and weaknesses

Please briefly summarize the manuscript in your own words, addressing:

  • The research problem addressed;
  • The main objective(s);
  • The methodological approach;
  • The principal findings and claimed contributions.

This summary helps ensure alignment between your understanding of the manuscript and your evaluation. After the summary, please provide two short bullet-point lists:

  • Highlight the key strengths of the paper.
  • Identify the main weaknesses or concerns.

2. Novelty

Consider the extent to which the manuscript demonstrates originality and contributes new insights to the Information Systems field. When assessing novelty, you may reflect on aspects such as:

  • The originality and relevance of the research problem;
  • The innovative character of the proposed solutions, analyses, models, or frameworks;
  • The introduction of new or adapted methodological procedures;
  • The proposition, refinement, or creative use of Information Systems theories;
  • The degree to which the study advances knowledge beyond the current state of the art.

You may find it helpful to consider questions such as:

  • Does the paper generate new knowledge, perspectives, or empirical evidence?
  • Does it meaningfully extend, challenge, or refine prior research?
  • Would the IS community learn something substantively new from this study?
  • Does it go beyond applying known techniques in a routine or incremental way?

3. Rigor

Consider the extent to which the manuscript demonstrates methodological and analytical robustness. When reflecting on rigor, you may examine aspects such as:

  • The soundness, clarity, and depth of the technical or theoretical contributions;
  • The appropriateness of the research design;
  • The adequacy of data collection and analysis procedures;
  • The internal consistency between research questions, methods, results, and conclusions;
  • The integrity of the evaluation and interpretation of findings.

You may consider questions such as:

  • Is the research design suitable for addressing the stated problem?
  • Are the methods described with sufficient clarity and justification?
  • Are the claims supported by appropriate evidence?
  • Are conclusions logically derived from the results?
  • Are limitations acknowledged and discussed appropriately?

4. Relevance to the Information Systems Field

Evaluate the significance and potential impact of the submission within IS. For example, you may consider:

  • Alignment with ongoing international and national research agendas;
  • Engagement with relevant IS literature;
  • Contributions to venues such as:
    • National venues and research agendas: iSys – Journal of Information Systems, Brazilian Symposium on Information Systems (SBSI), National Meeting of the Brazilian Academy of Management (EnANPAD), and the Grand Challenges in Information Systems Research in Brazil (GranDSI-BR 2026–2036), and others.
    • Leading international IS journals: MIS Quarterly (MISQ), Information Systems Research (ISR), European Journal of Information Systems (EJIS), Information Systems Journal (ISJ), Journal of Information Technology (JIT), Journal of Strategic Information Systems (JSIS), Information & Management (I&M), and Decision Support Systems (DSS), and others.
    • Major international IS conferences: International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), and Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), and others.

Potential questions:

  • Does the paper address a significant IS problem?
  • Does it offer new perspectives, theoretical insights, or practices?
  • Are predatory or retracted sources avoided?

5. Transparency, Replicability, and Reproducibility

Consider whether the manuscript provides sufficient transparency to allow readers to understand, evaluate, and potentially reproduce the research. In particular, reflect on:

  • The clarity with which the innovation, method, model, or system is described;
  • The transparency of data sources, instruments, and analytical procedures;
  • The availability (when applicable) of datasets, protocols, or code;
  • The disclosure of tools used in the research process (including AI/LLMs, if applicable);
  • Ethical considerations and social responsibility.

You may consider questions such as:

  • Are the methodological steps described in enough detail to support independent verification?
  • Is the data collection and analysis process transparent and traceable?
  • If full replication is not feasible, is the rationale clearly explained?
  • Are ethical aspects (e.g., privacy, consent, community impact) properly addressed?

6. Presentation Quality

Reflect on the clarity and overall quality of the manuscript’s presentation. In particular, you may consider:

  • Clarity and coherence of writing;
  • Logical structure and organization of sections;
  • Consistency and strength of argumentation;
  • Adequacy and readability of figures, tables, and references.

You may consider questions such as:

  • Is the manuscript clear, coherent, and accessible to the IS community?
  • Is the structure appropriate for a scientific article?
  • Do figures and tables effectively support the argument?
  • Is the writing precise and free of unnecessary redundancy?

Extended Versions (when applicable)

If the manuscript is an extended version of a conference paper or preprint:

  • Does it contain at least 40% new content?
  • Is the extension clearly justified in the cover letter?
  • Are new contributions substantive (not only additional related work)?

Suggestions for Authors

Please provide constructive and actionable feedback, clearly distinguishing:

  • Major revisions (theoretical, methodological, structural issues, etc);
  • Minor revisions (clarity, formatting, references, etc).

Reviews should be respectful, professional, and oriented toward improving the manuscript.

Confidential Comments to Editors

Use this section to report concerns not visible to authors, such as:

  • Suspected plagiarism;
  • Duplicate submissions;
  • Fabricated or manipulated data;
  • Ethical concerns;
  • Conflicts of interest.

These comments will remain confidential.

Style of Reviewing

  • Be critical but constructive: Point out problems clearly and suggest how to fix them.
  • Be respectful and fair: Avoid personal judgments or dismissive remarks.
  • Be transparent: Support your arguments with evidence and reasoning.
  • Be educational: Reviews are an opportunity to help authors, especially early-career researchers, learn and improve.

Decision Recommendation

At the end of the review form, you will be asked to make a recommendation:

  • Accept
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject

Your recommendation will guide the Responsible Editor, but the final decision rests with the Editorial Board.

Handling Suspicions of Misconduct

If you suspect plagiarism, duplicate submissions, fabricated data, or serious ethical violations:

  • Do not raise accusations directly to the authors.
  • Report privately in the “Comments for Editors” section.
  • Provide evidence where possible to support further investigation.

Recognition

iSys deeply acknowledges the important role of reviewers in ensuring the scientific quality, integrity, and impact of the journal. Peer review is a voluntary and highly valuable contribution to the advancement of the Information Systems community. To recognize this effort, iSys:

  • Publishes an annual acknowledgment of reviewers who have contributed to the journal;
  • Issues certificates of reviewing activity upon request.