Editing Openai/694a9a91-d810-8013-80fe-0c38fdc58984 (section)

=== User: Generate a photo for this linkedin update: My last sentence in an The European Conference on Information Systems ECIS r… ===
Generate a photo for this linkedin update: My last sentence in an The European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) review:

“This is the kind of paper I would like to listen to at ECIS—and then discuss with the authors during the coffee break.”

The paper has issues. Many of them. Rigor, contribution, positioning in prior work—nothing was “done.”

Yet I still recommended borderline acceptance.

Why?

My main line of thought in GenAI era – Always keep the recipient in mind. Is this worth 20 minutes of the audience’s time?

Not:

Is it already journal-ready?

Is every method airtight?

Is the theory perfectly polished?

But:

Will the audience in Milano gain something concrete?

Will the authors benefit from presenting it?

Will this trigger a real conversation afterward?

Conferences are not journals. They are attention markets.

If a paper sparks thinking, debate, or disagreement—and makes people stay in the room instead of checking email—it has earned its slot.

Disclaimer: this post is based solely on my "comments to editors" field and thus does not violate double-blind review rules.