Three Years as Editor-in-Chief of Communications of the Association for Information Systems

This editorial presents an overview of the three years at Communications of the Association for Information Systems (CAIS) during the term of its second editor-in-chief. Highlights of the three years include an ever-increasing submissions rate, fast turnaround times from submission to publication, and an increase in the proportion of authors preferring peer review to editorial board review. Statistics for submission and disposal for 2006-2008 are included in the editorial, as is commentary on three major changes at CAIS that occurred during those years: 1) the move to a new electronic submissions system; 2) the introduction of a new article format; and 3) the migration to a new e-library system

Editorial

Editorial for the issue

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

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

The IS History Initiative: Looking Forward by Looking Back

After officially appointing an AIS historian and forming the AIS history task force at the beginning of 2013, the AIS supported a set of systematic efforts, named IS history initiative, to preserve and represent the IS field’s history. From the perspective of the first AIS historian, I provide some background for the IS history initiative. Then I outline a detailed strategic plan and current status of its implementation. Ultimately, the IS history initiative has three goals: (1) to collect, represent, and preserve the IS field’s history; (2) to interpret, write, disseminate, and review the IS field’s history; and (3) to discover/identify IS genealogy, roots, sources, and facets that deserve to be examined from a historical point of view. Correspondingly, the strategic plan contains three parts. Each part has several specific tasks, many of which were already completed at the time of this writing, and several are either in progress or are planned for future efforts. This paper overviews both current efforts and guiding future efforts related to preserving and representing IS history

Roles and Responsibilities of a Senior Editor

In this editorial forum, we individually discuss (1) the roles and responsibilities of a senior editor (SE) as informed by our experiences, (2) key challenges to fulfilling the role of senior editor, and (3) philosophies/characteristics/ values/practices that are associated with the most effective SEs. A consensus emerges that it is the responsibility of SEs to determine the final disposition of papers submitted to their journal in light of various tradeoffs. In making these decisions, the SE must be cognizant of authors’ careers and the field’s intellectual development. We recognize the constructive element of the SE role and the importance of their offering guidance to the authors. While there was disagreement as to whether the “invisible college” or formal policies should be enacted to limit undesirable practices, suggestions emerged about how SEs could be better recognized for their contributions and SE-related policies could be enacted to improve the review process

A Guide to Student Publications

Abstract not Include

The Hidden Curriculum of Starting an Open-Access Online Journal: An Editor’s Perspective

Starting a new academic journal is a scholarly undertaking that is not taught in graduate school. However, higher education professors may well find it necessary to engage in journal work during their careers. As available literature gives little direction for prospective journal founders and editors, this article provides a Scholarly Personal Narrative (SPN) account of a Senior Editor-in-Chief’s journey through the process of establishing a new academic journal. Challenges inherent to the process are discussed, and recommendations are provided for prospective editors