Abstract:The editorial process at our leading information systems journals has been pivotal in shaping and growing our field. But this process has grown long in the tooth and is increasingly frustrating and challenging its various stakeholders: editors, reviewers, and authors. The sudden and explosive spread of AI tools, including advances in language models, make them a tempting fit in our efforts to ease and advance the editorial process. But we must carefully consider how the goals and methods of AI tools fit with the core purpose of the editorial process. We present a thought experiment exploring the implications of two distinct futures for the information systems powering today’s journal editorial process: an AI-augmented and an AI-driven one. The AI-augmented scenario envisions systems providing algorithmic predictions and recommendations to enhance human decision-making, offering enhanced efficiency while maintaining human judgment and accountability. However, it also requires debate over algorithm transparency, appropriate machine learning methods, and data privacy and security. The AI-driven scenario, meanwhile, imagines a fully autonomous and iterative AI. While potentially even more efficient, this future risks failing to align with academic values and norms, perpetuating data biases, and neglecting the important social bonds and community practices embedded in and strengthened by the human-led editorial process. We consider and contrast the two scenarios in terms of their usefulness and dangers to authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers. We conclude by cautioning against the lure of an AI-driven, metric-focused approach, advocating instead for a future where AI serves as a tool to augment human capacity and strengthen the quality of academic discourse. But more broadly, this thought experiment allows us to distill what the editorial process is about: the building of a premier research community instead of chasing metrics and efficiency. It is up to us to guard these values.

Do papers (really) match journals’ “aims and scope”? A computational assessment of innovation studies

Scopes of accounting journals and published papers: what do they signalize?

Spider Matrix: Towards Research Paper Evaluation and Innovation for Everyone

Content-based and Algorithmic Classifications of Journals: Perspectives on the Dynamics of Scientific Communication and Indexer Effects.

A Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Publications on the Fuzzy Sets Theory

Innovation and Word Usage Patterns in Machine Learning

A Bibliometric Study of the Literature on Technological Innovation: An Analysis of 60 International Academic Journals

Methodi Ordinatio: a proposed methodology to select and rank relevant scientific papers encompassing the impact factor, number of citation, and year of publication

Are nationally oriented journals indexed in Scopus becoming more international? The effect of publication language and access modality

Reimagining the Journal Editorial Process: an AI-Augmented Versus an AI-Driven Future.

Co-Creating Value With Artificial Intelligence: A Bibliometric Approach to the Use of AI in Open Innovation Ecosystems

Measuring science and innovation linkage using text mining of research papers and patent information

Why IEEE Xplore Matters for Research Trend Analysis in the Energy Sector

Analysis of the impact of studies published by Internext - Revista Eletrônica de Negócios Internacionais

How do academic topics shift across altmetric sources? A case study of the research area of Big Data

Comparing Published Scientific Journal Articles to Their Pre-Print Versions -- Extended Version

Intellectual structure of management innovation: bibliometric analysis

Academic Innovation Controlling of Scientific Papers by Editors

Beyond Citations: Measuring Novel Scientific Ideas and their Impact in Publication Text

Psychology journals guidelines on title, abstract and keywords

Co-words Analysis of the Last Ten Years of the International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems.