webster & watson - How to write a LR - MISQ How To Write A Literature Review | Page 9

Webster & Watson/Guest Editorial

contact senior experts conducting research on the particular topic of the review. Thus, reviews are written
by well-qualified, accomplished scholars. The benefit is that you will receive a detailed, developmental
review. The downside is that these reviewers will recognize many opportunities for you to improve the
quality of your work. As a result, the revision will take more effort than the revision for a regular article.
What concerns have reviewers generally pointed out in their comments on MISQ Review papers? “What’s
new?” always seems to be highlighted by reviewers, and earlier we listed ways of demonstrating the
contributions of your paper. However, reviewers are looking for not one, but a combination of contributions.
Saying that "it hasn't been done before" on its own will not convince your reviewers. More generally, and
consistent with Whetten’s (1989) most-frequently occurring types of reviewer concerns, we have found that
reviewers are looking for contribution (“what’s new?”), impact (“so what?”), logic (“why so?”), and
thoroughness (“well done?”). You will be well on your way to a publishable paper if you can address these
four major concerns when first submitting your paper.
Responding to the reviewers’ concerns differs from a traditional research paper in two major aspects. First,
the revision process is generally longer because it takes time to reread and reinterpret the literature on
which your article is based. You also will need to read and integrate articles suggested by the reviewers.
Second, because a revision to a long paper can involve many changes, it is helpful to develop a plan for
the review and share it with the editor and reviewers. A plan clarifies how you will handle the possibly
disparate recommendations of reviewers. If the reviewers disagree on how you will reconcile their advice,
then considerable time and anguish is saved if this divergence of views is sorted out before you launch on
a major revision. MISQ Review does not require authors to submit a plan prior to revision, but we certainly
urge you to consider this option.

Summary
An ideal article:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

motivates the research topic and explains the review’s contributions
describes the key concepts
delineates the boundaries of the research
reviews relevant prior literature in IS and related areas
develops a model to guide future research
justifies propositions by presenting theoretical explanations, past empirical findings, and practical
examples
presents concluding implications for researchers and managers.

And on top of this, the exemplary review article should be explanatory and creative!
MISQ Review articles are significantly longer than regular MIS Quarterly articles, so authors have the
space to develop such an ideal article. Nevertheless, this task is not straightforward. We challenge you
to craft such contributions for MISQ Review to move the field forward. Like Sutton and Staw’s (1995, p.
380) conclusion about organizational research, we believe that
Without constant pressure for theory building, the field would surely slide to its natural
resting place in dust-bowl empiricism.

MIS Quarterly Vol. 26 No. 2/June 2002

xxi