ATISR Peer Review System – Processes, Transparency, and Quality Control

The peer review process is a vital pillar of academic publishing, ensuring that research meets accepted standards of quality, validity, and relevance. The Academy of Taiwan Information Systems Research (ATISR) operates its peer review system with the aim of promoting academic integrity and rigorous scholarly standards.

This article look into how ATISR’s peer review system works, how it maintains transparency, and what measures are in place to ensure quality control throughout the publication process.

Overview

ATISR is known for organizing conferences and publishing proceedings across fields such as information systems, business management, and social sciences. Its peer review system is integral to maintaining academic credibility and attracting international scholars. The system is structured, multi-layered, and designed to reduce bias while improving the quality of submissions.

Submission

Authors begin the process by submitting their manuscripts through the ATISR conference or journal submission portal. Submissions must follow prescribed formatting and ethical guidelines. Most calls for papers clearly define scope, topics, and deadlines.

Submissions are first screened by editors or program chairs to verify basic requirements, such as:

• Topic relevance
• Formatting and word count
• Plagiarism check
• Ethical compliance (e.g., no simultaneous submissions)

Only submissions passing this initial filter are sent for peer review.

Review Process

ATISR uses a double-blind peer review model. In this setup:

• Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors
• Authors do not know who reviewed their work

This structure helps reduce potential bias based on author reputation, institution, or geography.

Each submission is typically reviewed by two to three independent reviewers. These reviewers evaluate the paper based on criteria such as:

• Originality
• Theoretical contribution
• Methodological rigor
• Relevance to conference/journal themes
• Writing quality and structure

Reviewers are given a standardized evaluation form with space for comments and scoring across multiple dimensions. These scores help determine whether a paper is accepted, requires revision, or is rejected.

Feedback

One of the strengths of the ATISR system is its detailed feedback. Authors receive reviewer comments, including:

• Constructive suggestions for improvement
• Identified flaws in logic, method, or data
• Recommendations for clarity and structure

This feedback process supports learning and improvement, particularly for early-career researchers. Reviewers are also encouraged to highlight strengths, which helps guide authors in future submissions.

Revisions

If a paper is marked as “revise and resubmit,” authors are expected to address the reviewer comments thoroughly and resubmit within a given timeline. Revised submissions often go through another round of review, either by the original reviewers or by an editorial panel.

Revisions are essential for improving manuscript quality, aligning it with academic standards, and increasing the likelihood of acceptance.

Transparency

ATISR has made efforts to increase transparency in its peer review system by:

• Publishing review policies online
• Informing authors about the review timeline and criteria
• Clearly labeling review stages (submission, review, decision, revision)

Although reviewer identities remain confidential, the structure and expectations of the process are openly communicated. This transparency fosters trust among authors, reviewers, and academic institutions.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in relevant subject areas. ATISR maintains a reviewer database and cross-references it with paper topics to ensure proper matches.

To maintain quality:

• Reviewers are usually scholars with a PhD or equivalent academic experience
• Performance is monitored through editor feedback
• Reviewers can be rotated or removed based on quality, responsiveness, or conduct

This ensures that the review process is carried out by qualified, committed professionals.

Quality Control

Several quality control mechanisms are built into the ATISR peer review process:

1. Initial Screening – Filters out weak or non-compliant papers early.
2. Double-Blind Review – Minimizes bias in evaluation.
3. Standardized Criteria – Ensures consistent scoring and feedback.
4. Editorial Oversight – Program chairs or editors make final decisions based on reviews.
5. Plagiarism Detection Tools – All submissions are checked for originality.

Additionally, ATISR occasionally audits its review system to improve efficiency, reviewer training, and author support.

The ATISR peer review system is designed to balance fairness, academic rigor, and efficiency. Through double-blind reviews, transparent processes, and structured quality controls, it ensures that only research of a high standard is accepted for publication or presentation. For authors and reviewers alike, ATISR offers a reliable and professional platform that aligns with global academic expectations.

FAQs