– Research full-length papers will need to show evidence of their (theoretical) contributions, while research-in-progress papers will need to demonstrate potential for a contribution (for example, through the presentation of a suitable research design).
– Evaluate the manuscript for clarity and coherence. Check if the Introduction provides adequate background information and states the research question(s) clearly. The academic (and practical) motivation of each paper should be clear. Ensure that the methodology is sufficiently described and justified, and the findings/results and discussion sections are logically presented.
– For research-in-progress, papers will need to present the researchers’ planned methodology and envisaged contributions instead of a detailed methodology and findings/results.
– Assess the appropriateness of the research design and methodology, including data collection and analysis methods, as well as consistency with the research question(s). For example, a “how” research question will typically require a qualitative methodology.
– Examine the presentation of the results, including tables, figures, and statistical analyses, where relevant, and ensure there is sufficient evidence.
– Determine if the data support the conclusions drawn by the authors.
– Verify that the authors have appropriately cited previous relevant research. Recommend key studies that may have been missed by the author!
– Offer clear and constructive comments to help the authors improve their manuscript.
– Do not mention your recommendation (for example, accept/reject) in the review itself, but on the system (EasyChair).
– Check if the submission fully complies with the conference template.
NB: MCIS & MENACIS are both developmental conferences. Research-in-progress papers are therefore strongly encouraged.
– The conference follows a double-blind review process protecting the anonymity of both the authors and the reviewers.
– For a fair and unbiased review, it is best to focus solely on the scientific quality and value of the research. In case of personal biases, conflicts of interest, or financial relationships that could affect your objectivity, please recuse yourself from the review.
– A respectful and professional tone should be maintained throughout the review process, in order to provide the author(s) with constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement, even in cases where the reviewer recommends rejection.
– If the scope of the paper is outside the field of your own expertise and knowledge, please decline the invitation to review and suggest alternative reviewers who may be better suited.
– Report any ethical concerns about the research in question — such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or improper citation practices — by getting in touch with the Programme Chairs.
– Refrain from using the information obtained during the review process for personal gain or to discredit others.
– Please conduct the review promptly and within the designated timeframe. If an extension is required, get in touch with the Programme Chairs.
The MCIS and MENACIS 2023 Programme Committee Co-Chairs
[MENACIS] Jihane Aayale (ISCAE, MA)
[MENACIS] Abdullah Albizri (Montclair State University, USA)
[MCIS] Petros Chamakiotis (ESCP Business School, ES)
[MENACIS] Nizar Raissi (Umm Al-Qura University, SA)
[MCIS] Konstantina Valogianni (IE Business School, ES)
