I am writing a literature review for my final research class in my MBA in Applied Computer Science and I am looking for very current peer reviewed literature on ERP systems implementation. There are not that many articles out there so when I find one that looks like a great fit, I get a little excited. My excitement soon turns to disappointment as I begin reading the article. "It's not so bad" I tell myself. "Probably just a language issue", I keep trying to convince myself since the author is from Romania. But then I see this final concluding paragraph and I have to trash the article. "Implementing a different product instead of an ERP, inside a large or a very large organization is out of the question. It has to be an ERP because of the integration advantages first of all. It has to be a mature and verified ERP because developing one from scratch for a company that big it's almost impossible. It would cost a lot more, it would last forever and there will be no guarantees either." Avram, C. D. (2010). ERP inside large organizations. Informatica Economica, 14(4), 196-196-208. Retrieved from Log in - ProQuest - ProQuest I am by no means a practiced researcher but this type of drivel in a peer reviewed journal is downright embarrassing. There are grammatical errors here but there are also totally unsubstantiated assertions. Ridiculous.
I guess that explains in part why some journals are better regarded than others. Assuming that's representative of the language quality throughout, if I were a reviewer I'd have sent it back, advising them to have a good writer coach them on a revision and then resubmit it.
