{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03348104382077794, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0120630231413097, 'mean_word_length': 4.558139534883721, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 2, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The associate editor and senior editor roles in premier IS journals

There are many articles and commentaries on how to be a good reviewer (e.g., Davison, 2014; Davison et al., 2005; Lee, 1995; Rai, 2016; Saunders, 2005). The ISJ has developed its own guidelines for reviewers, available at https:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/13652575/homepage/for-reviewers. However, if one wants to know how to be a good Associate Editor (AE) or Senior Editor (SE), there are fewer places to look for guidance. While the experience of reviewing many papers is usually necessary in order to be a good AE or SE, it is not sufficient. We do not believe that good AEs and SEs emerge by default or happenstance. Competent AEs and SEs do particular things in managing and conducting the review process. In this editorial, we lay out what we think these are, organising this material as a set of comprehensive guidelines. They are not intended to be mandatory prescriptions: we do not expect that every SE and AE follow each and every one to the letter. Instead, we expect that SEs and AEs will exercise their own judgement and prerogative in accordance with their respective roles. In a typical journal, the SE is the person in executive charge of the paper's journey through the review and improvement process. The SE assigns the paper to an AE who has experience/expertise in its domain. The AE is responsible for organising the reviews. The AE sends the paper to reviewers (typically 2–4), and, informed by their reviews, makes a recommendation to the SE regarding the paper. The SE takes into account the AE's recommendation and the comments of the reviewers, before reaching a decision that reflects both their positions and also the SE's own view. Both the AE and the SE are expected to read the paper before they reach their respective recommendations/decisions. In the following paragraphs, we provide a more detailed account of these activities, as they are conducted at the ISJ, and also as are typical in premier IS journals. (Note: At some of these journals, the roles of the SE and AE are combined into an overall SE or AE role, where one person undertakes the work of both roles.) Pre-Review screening: This is the step that gets everything started: getting familiar with the paper. The SE, when assigning the paper, should give the AE an indication of what they think regarding its readiness for full review: is the topic interesting, are the methods rigorous, does the paper fit the journal, are there any obvious problems? The AE should read the paper, get a sense of its domain, methods and contribution and consider these in the light of the journal. If there are major or glaring shortcomings especially with respect to the contribution, methods and data, then a desk reject (or a desk revise and resubmit) may be in order. Likewise, if there is a lack of fit with the journal's domains and topics the SE/AE can reject the paper or ask the authors for a revision to enhance the fit of the submission with the journal. A common reason for a desk-reject involves a mismatch between the stated and actual research question and contribution, or failure to deliver the stated contribution. Other criteria that may need to be assessed include plagiarism or self-plagiarism and resubmissions of conference papers. General guidelines for authors submitting to the ISJ can be found here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/13652575/homepage/ forauthors.html. It may so happen that while the paper is a good fit, there are obvious issues that can or need to be fixed to make the reviewing process fruitful. For example, the paper may be too long, the language may be poor, or may be incorrectly formatted. Necessary content such as the construct details and items may be missing. Papers may also suffer from weak presentation, even when the ideas themselves are interesting, in which case copy editing may be needed before the review process starts. Occasionally, papers are submitted as a manuscript type (e.g. research article, DOI: 10.1111/isj.12332