The 2019 survey asked authors to assess the quality and timeliness of reviews they had received in 2018 from the eight basket journals plus CAIS and MISQE (excluding desk rejects). We received 179 responses, with most journals receiving 40-60 responses. MISQ received the most (74 responses), and MISQE the fewest (12).
The first analysis is the Net Promoter Score, which is a measure of loyalty to the journal. It asks respondents whether they would recommend the journal, using a 0-10 scale. Those responding 9 or 10 are “Promoters”, while those responding 0-6 are “Detractors”. The Net Promoter Score is the percent of Promoters minus the percent of Detractors, and thus is on a scale of -100 to +100. It is often seen as a leading indicator of future ratings. MISQ remains in the top spot from last year, with the new additions, CAIS and MISQE, close behind.
The second analysis is a 2x2 graph of Review Timeliness by Review Quality(3 items, quality, fairness, helpfulness; alpha=.90), both of which were measured on 7-point scales with 4=Neutral. CAIS takes the top spot, with MISQ (last year’s leader) close behind. The good news is that mean timeliness significantly increased from last year by almost 0.5 points. Some of this is due to the addition of CAIS and MISQE, but even after removing them, we see a significant increase in timeliness of about 0.3 points across the basket journals. Standard error is .059, so differences of .12 or more are significant, at p=.05).
The third analysis shows the Changes in Timeliness and Quality from 2018 to 2019.
The fourth analysis is the extent to which the journal Publishes Interesting Research, measured by two items (interesting, and fit with my research, alpha = .90). Standard error is .028, so differences of .06 or more are significant, at p=.05).