Rejection...rejection..yet I don't feel upset!
Thanks for the two reviewers's comments! I got better focus on how to modify the paper to send to the journal.
Reviewer 1:
The paper presents an ethnographical study on the impact on technology to workpractices and work environment. The context is Malaysian Hospital. The novelty the topic is low. There are a lot of literature in CSCW or IS disciplines on impact on technology to work practices. For instance acm.org/dl portreys several articles. Also the research methods are questionable. Currently it is difficult to evaluate the rigority of the research. I suggest the authors to look at Richard Harper's paper on "active badges" (published in CSCW journal in mid 90's). The paper presents a description of ethnographical methods in work place studies. By structuring the paper accordinly, and paying attention to different details would improve the quality of the paper significantly. Taking these weaknesses into account makes it difficult to evaluate the contribution. Currently there are too many weaknesses. However, the paper has potential as indepth studies on hospitals and technology adoption there are surprisingly few (at least their findings are not on broad scale). The paper is reasonable well written and structured, occasionally the paper suffer unclear terminology.
Reviewer 2:
There are several good things in the abstract. Firstly, the topic of the research is contemporary one and relevant for several hospitals in different countries. There are many things related to information system utilization that should be improved in health care sector and the case of the abstract represents this kind of issue. Secondly, the paper is very well written in overall. Thus, it is easy and enjoyable to read. Thirdly, the aims of the research and the research methodology are clearly presented, which is very important for a scientific paper. However, there are also some shortcomings in the abstract. The biggest shortcoming is the level of description of the research; the abstract would be much better if the phenomenon under discussion would have been brought up to a more general level, such as the information system utilization level or to information and knowledge management level. In current form, the abstract is more practical paper as a scientific paper with a clear promise of theoretical contribution. Another shortcoming is that the authors have not mentioned what are the expected results of the research. If the research is still going on and the analysis of the research data is not concluded yet, it would have been important to mention. As current form the abstract is not able to convince the reader of the relevance of the results of the research nor its theoretical background and contribution to literature.
Reviewer 1:
The paper presents an ethnographical study on the impact on technology to workpractices and work environment. The context is Malaysian Hospital. The novelty the topic is low. There are a lot of literature in CSCW or IS disciplines on impact on technology to work practices. For instance acm.org/dl portreys several articles. Also the research methods are questionable. Currently it is difficult to evaluate the rigority of the research. I suggest the authors to look at Richard Harper's paper on "active badges" (published in CSCW journal in mid 90's). The paper presents a description of ethnographical methods in work place studies. By structuring the paper accordinly, and paying attention to different details would improve the quality of the paper significantly. Taking these weaknesses into account makes it difficult to evaluate the contribution. Currently there are too many weaknesses. However, the paper has potential as indepth studies on hospitals and technology adoption there are surprisingly few (at least their findings are not on broad scale). The paper is reasonable well written and structured, occasionally the paper suffer unclear terminology.
Reviewer 2:
There are several good things in the abstract. Firstly, the topic of the research is contemporary one and relevant for several hospitals in different countries. There are many things related to information system utilization that should be improved in health care sector and the case of the abstract represents this kind of issue. Secondly, the paper is very well written in overall. Thus, it is easy and enjoyable to read. Thirdly, the aims of the research and the research methodology are clearly presented, which is very important for a scientific paper. However, there are also some shortcomings in the abstract. The biggest shortcoming is the level of description of the research; the abstract would be much better if the phenomenon under discussion would have been brought up to a more general level, such as the information system utilization level or to information and knowledge management level. In current form, the abstract is more practical paper as a scientific paper with a clear promise of theoretical contribution. Another shortcoming is that the authors have not mentioned what are the expected results of the research. If the research is still going on and the analysis of the research data is not concluded yet, it would have been important to mention. As current form the abstract is not able to convince the reader of the relevance of the results of the research nor its theoretical background and contribution to literature.
posted by Rohaya & Taufik at
3:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home