Article processing procedure

The article processing procedure in SIM follows the following scheme: the section editor where the article is submitted, has two weeks to review a submission and make an initial editorial decision, which can result in rejection of the article, its assignment to an editor, a demand to change section, or a forward of the paper to the editor in chief.

The "desk reject" process at SIM journal follows the principles outlined in the editorial by Régis Meissonier (2015), then Editor-in-Chief of SIM, titled "Critical Points of a Desk Reject" This editorial specifies the importance of the following elements: "the scientific nature of the manuscript, precision of the argumentation, clarity of writing style, structure, and level of French or English, as well as other points specified in the author guidelines". It has formalized four additional critical for the journal:

1. To what extent does the article fall within the field of information systems?
2. What justification for the research is provided?
3. What is the originality of the article?
4. Is the methodology sufficiently rigorous?

Furthermore, a desk reject can be justified because of scientific misconduct, as already observed in the past (Honig 2018; Tourish 2020). SIM journal has clarified the ethical principles it upholds and that authors must follow: the National Charter for Research Integrity of the CNRS, the European Charter for Researchers, and the AIS (Association for Information Systems) policy. Finally, all submissions are now subject to authenticity and plagiarism checks using dedicated software. Reviewers as well as editors comply with the non-disclosure agreement established between the journal and the author concerning the author’s submission. The author’s submission is not shared with third parties or uploaded online for any reason, except for testing the authenticity and the plagiarism checks using dedicated software.

References

Meissonier, R. (2015), “Les points critiques d’un desk reject”, Systèmes d’information & management, ESKA, Paris, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 3–7, doi:10.3917/sim.153.0003. 

Honig, B., Lampel, J., Baum, J. A. C., Glynn, M. A., Jing, R., Lounsbury, M., Schüßler, E., Sirmon, D. G., Tsui, A. S., Walsh, J. P., & van Witteloostuijn, A. (2018). Reflections on Scientific Misconduct in Management: Unfortunate Incidents or a Normative Crisis? Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(4), 412–442. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2015.0167

Tourish, D., & Craig, R. (2020). Research Misconduct in Business and Management Studies: Causes, Consequences, and Possible Remedies. Journal of Management Inquiry, 29(2), 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492618792621

———

Editorial statistics as of February 2, 2026:

Approximately 80% of submissions receive an initial editorial decision, such as rejection in pre-evaluation (desk-reject) or their transfer for evaluation within an 14-day period. This percentage is based on the editorial activity since 02 February 2025. It indicates that a large majority of authors submitting to the journal will receive an initial response within this timeframe.

———

After that, the editor has two weeks to select reviewers (minimum 2, experts in the field, who have no conflict of interest). The editor is not a reviewer of the paper.

The reviewer should not tied to the author(s) in any way that would weigh against her/his rendering a fair and unbiased recommendation on the manuscript. If prospective reviewers are invited to be part of the review team, and they feel they cannot be impartial in reviewing the manuscript, then they should recuse themselves from handling the paper. For reviewers, if you have a question about a possible conflict of interest, escalate the question in the review hierarchy.

When accepting to review, reviewers commit themselves:

1. To accept to review only articles that are relevant to their expertise

2. To report to the editor any suspicion of ethical misconduct

3. To treat reviewed articles confidentially

4. To review works in an impartial and timely manner

5. To review successive versions of the work if requested

6. To ensure that articles they review respect the journal guidelines and that all relevant literature is cited

Reviewers then have six weeks to submit their evaluations to the editor. The role of a reviewer is to provide expert advice to inform the assessment of and the decision that is made by the editor. At SIM, the reviewer advises and the editor decides. As Campbell (1982) notes, “Reviewers act as consultants and advisers, but they do not make the decision” (p. 695). As such, reviewers for SIM should refrain from stating their advice on the decision (accept, revise, reject, etc.) in their comments to the authors.

Once the evaluations are received, the editor has two weeks to communicate the decision to the authors. This decision could be either a rejection of the article or an invitation for revision. In the case of revision, the editor sets a deadline for the authors, typically three months for major revisions (what the website indicates as “Resubmit for review”). Authors may request an extension of this deadline with justification. The editor may grant an additional extension of up to three months. Any submission after the deadline will typically be treated as a new submission.

 

 

Step	Round	Responsible	Step duration (months)	Cumulative duration (months)	Exit of process
Submission	1st	Author	0	0
Submission processing	1st	Section Editor	½ month	½ month	Desk reject
Transmission to reviewers	1st	Editor	½ month	1 month
Evaluation	1st	Reviewer	1 month & ½	2 months and ½
Feedback to authors	1st	Editor	½ month	3 months	Reject
Article revision	2nd	Author	½ month min / 3 months max	3 months and ½ min / 6 months max

 

 

When the editor considers that the reviewers are no longer necessary to continue improving the submission and finalizing the article, the editor directly manages minor revision requests with the author (what the application call “Revisions Required”).

The editor has two weeks to respond to the author, systematically giving a deadline of two weeks. Authors may request, with justification, an extension of the deadline. The editor may agree to an additional maximum extension of two weeks.

The editor conditionally accepts (or not) the article for publication, asking for final adjustments to the paper. The editor has one week to respond to the author, systematically providing a two-week deadline for implementing any requested final adjustments. Authors may request an extension of the deadline, providing justification. The editor may grant an additional extension of up to two weeks. The authors can ask to publish a translated version of their paper, complementary to the original one.

The editor then proceeds with the acceptance of article, after which the editor-in-chief / deputy editor-in-chief forwards the article for copy-editing and publication.

Every article is presented to the editorial board to have collective feedback on how to improve further the paper. The editor decides the best moment to present the paper to the editorial board. The editor shares with the editorial board, no later than two weeks before the editorial board meeting: (1) the article, (2) a proposed letter to the authors including any modifications to request, and (3) a presentation of the history and critical assessment of the article, to alert the board to any critical issues to be discussed.

———

Editorial statistics as of February 2, 2026:

If the editorial decision is acceptance, in 80% of cases it will be announced within a 249-day period. This figure is calculated based on the editorial activity of the last 12 months.

The acceptance rate of submissions over the last 24 months is 11%.

———