Knowledge and Information Systems
An International Journal
ISSN: 0219-1377 (printed version)
ISSN: 0219-3116 (electronic version)
by Springer

June 29, 2024: the 2023 KAIS impact factor is 2.5.

Critical Reviews and Vision/Direction Papers:
Policy Document for Editors

NB: unless specified otherwise, the word "editor" in this document covers all types of editors -- from executive editor to EB members.

The KAIS journal seeks to publish "critical reviews" and also papers on "visions and directions."

[Visions/Directions][Critical Reviews][Acquisition Process]

Visions/Directions Papers

"Visions and directions" papers are on industry trends, government funding directions, new academic directions, etc. in one of the areas covered by the journal. These papers should be very short, similar to the columns in some IEEE magazines. They should be aimed at the general readership of the journal, and not be densely technical.

Authors should be established members of their own fields. The papers will be by invitation, but potential authors can make it known to the editors that they would welcome an invitation.

An issue of the journal is not restricted to including just one visions/directions paper. These papers will be published as soon as they are accepted.

[Visions/Directions][Critical Reviews][Acquisition Process]

Critical Reviews

  1. The word "critical" is to be taken seriously. A critical review should not just be a summary.

    The paper should include an extensive bibliography, preferably annotated. Apart from the bibliography, the review can be quite short. Lengthy reviews can well be off-putting because of the pressure of doing the ordinary reading of research papers. A concise review with a substantial bibliography, especially if annotated, could be a better service to the readership than a lengthy review.

  2. The journal welcomes reviews that cover more than one area and that seek to show relationships, such as opportunities for and obstacles to using the techniques of the one area to help another. E.g., the areas could be learning on the one hand and multi-agent systems on the other. All the areas should normally be within the coverage of the journal, but exceptions can be made.

  3. The main author of a critical review should be an established member of his/her own field. For each area covered by the review, the author list should include at least one author who is expert in that area. Co-authors can include authors' research students or postdocs, especially as these may have been helpful with such tasks as building an annotated bibliography.

  4. It is crucial that a review be written in such a way that it is mostly accessible to professionals in knowledge and information systems who do not have a detailed knowledge of the area(s) reviewed. However, it may also contain a limited amount of technical material that is only likely to be accessible to experts in the area(s).

  5. A review should normally contain a historical perspective on the research and development up to the current date as well as information about the state of the art. It should also provide a description on research directions that are currently considered the most important, and roads that are considered to be most promising to lead to the answers. However, in the case of a review that mainly seeks to link two areas, the review need not give a historical perspective.

  6. Critical reviews include invited reviews from established researchers as well as those from paper submitters who choose to write a review paper.
[Visions/Directions][Critical Reviews][Acquisition Process]

Management of the Acquisition Process
(for both invited reviews and visions/directions papers)

  1. Invitations to potential authors of critical reviews will be sent out by the Executive Editor long in advance. We will normally allow a lead time of between 6 months and a year. Within four months of the deadline, regular reminders will be sent.

    Invitations to potential authors of visions/directions papers will be sent out by the Executive Editor about two months before the paper is required.

  2. Suggestions from authors who wish to be invited to write a visions/directions paper will go to the Executive Editor or to one of the three regional Editors. In the latter case, the Editor should pass the suggestion on to the Executive Editor.

  3. From time to time, we will also invite a bunch of reviews or visions/directions papers with no clear idea in advance of what order they will appear in, and we may send out more than one invitation for a given paper. It is possible that we have more than one review of or visions/directions paper on a given topic, even in a single journal issue.

  4. The regional Editors and EB members are always invited to nominate potential critical reviewers or visions/directions authors to the Executive Editor. If many suggestions are on the table at a particular time, there will be a discussion among editors as to their relative priority.

  5. When it has proven difficult to secure a paper on some desired topic, EB members who are knowledgeable about the area may be asked to fill in the gap.

  6. An editor (preferably an EB member) who is relatively close to the area(s) of a paper would be put in charge of managing the acquisition of the paper and passing it to other people.
[Visions/Directions][Critical Reviews][Acquisition Process]
Copyright © 1998 - by KAIS Editorial Board (kaiseic AT gmail DOT com)