The Effects of the Quantification of Faculty Productivity: Perspectives from the Design Science Research Community

In recent years, efforts to assess faculty research productivity have focused more on the measurable quantification of academic outcomes. For benchmarking academic performance, researchers have developed different ranking and rating lists that define so-called high-quality research. While many scholars in IS consider lists such as the Senior Scholar’s basket (SSB) to provide good guidance, others who belong to less-mainstream groups in the IS discipline could perceive these lists as constraining. Thus, we analyzed the perceived impact of the SSB on information systems (IS) academics working in design science research (DSR) and, in particular, how it has affected their research behavior. We found the DSR community felt a strong normative influence from the SSB. We conducted a content analysis of the SSB and found evidence that some of its journals have come to accept DSR more. We note the emergence of papers in the SSB that outline the role of theory in DSR and describe DSR methodologies, which indicates that the DSR community has rallied to describe what to expect from a DSR manuscript to the broader IS community and to guide the DSR community on how to organize papers for publication in the SSB

The Contribution of Top IS Publications to Subsequent Research: A Citation Analysis

Information Systems (IS) research is undertaken to advance the body of knowledge on IS-related phenomena at the individual, group, and organizational levels of analysis. The goals of conducting IS research range from individual learning—e.g., the intellectual development of individual scholars over community learning; e.g., the enhancement of research in the broader IS academic community to the improvement of practice in organizations. Whereas IS research has been criticized for having limited practical relevance, many scholars have assumed that IS research is succeeding in having a major impact on the IS academic community itself. This article challenges the assumption. Using citations as a proxy for contributions to subsequent research—or research importance—this study presents average citation figures for 1,992 papers published in six peer-reviewed IS journals between 1996 and 2010. It finds that citation figures are strongly skewed, with a vast majority of works published in top IS outlets being cited rather rarely. The article offers a discussion of the factors that may account for this finding and closes with a brief summary and outlook

Digital Transformation and IT: Current State of Research

Information Systems (IS) have never been more important as digital technologies are essential for business model innovation by developing new digital products and services. Digital transformation not only affects business, but also IT. While digital transformation and digital technologies are well established research areas, the implications of digital transformation on IT are rarely in focus. Taking this topic as a reference, the paper contributes to general IS research by assessing to which extent digital innovation is already subject to mainstream IS research. A bibliometric study analyzing all 2,833 articles published in the AIS Senior Scholars’ \u27basket\u27 of eight leading IS journals between 2007 and 2016 reveals that a mere 0.2% address the impact of digital transformation on IT while 2.3% cover topics of digital transformation, innovation, or digital technologies. In contrast to previous work, this study finds that digital innovation research is already present in primarily high-ranked IS journals

Editorial Board Memberships: A Report on the Status of the Leading Information Systems Journals

Research journals play a significant role in the generation, dissemination, and sharing of knowledge in an academic discipline. To a great extent, the editorial board members of these research journals manage and control the generation, dissemination, and sharing of knowledge. They also act as policymakers, gatekeepers, and trendsetters. In their latter roles, editorial board members can influence several factors in a discipline; namely, the research topics, the research methods, the research scope, and whose articles are published. The primary goal of this study is to investigate and report on the status of the editorial boards memberships in a set of 14 leading Information Systems (IS) journals. The study does this along the following three main diversity elements namely titles, gender, academic institution, and the geographical location of the editorial boards’ members. The set of 14 journals include the IS basket of 8 journal list. Of the 14 reviewed journals, 7 are domiciled in the US and 7 in Europe. Results reveal a lack of common editorial board classification criteria whereby members of the editorial boards were categorized into different groups and referred to using various titles such as senior editors, associate editors, editorial board members, editorial review board members, and board of editors. Also, the results show that, as of June 2020, the 14 IS journals’ editorial boards had 1214 instances (988 unique occurrences) of editorial board members who came from 44 unique countries. Of those 988 editorial board members, 253 (26%) were females while 736 (74%) were males. In addition, out of the 988 editorial board members, 48% were from US and Canada, 26% were from Europe, and 26% were from the rest of the world. The results also reveal the schools and faculty with the highest number of editorial board memberships. Having a significant number of editorial board members from US and Europe (74%) fits with what Kubota (2019) called epistemological racism; a practice in which the Western world has an upper hand in determining and controlling knowledge and academic practices. Given the roles of the editorial boards in the review process and setting the research agenda for a journal, a more diverse editorial board might publish a more diverse research output. Furthermore, a more diverse editorial board is likely to have a repertoire of internal reviewers who speed up and lower the review process costs, which are challenges inherent in a less diverse editorial board

Does “Evaluating Journal Quality and the Association for Information Systems Senior Scholars Journal Basket…” Support the Basket with Bibliometric Measures?

We re-examine “Evaluating Journal Quality and the Association for Information Systems Senior Scholars Journal Basket…” by Lowry et al. (2013). They sought to use bibliometric methods to validate the Basket as the eight top quality journals that are “strictly speaking, IS journals” (Lowry et al., 2013, pp. 995, 997). They examined 21 journals out of 140 journals considered as possible IS journals. We also expand the sample to 73 of the 140 journals. Our sample includes a wider range of approaches to IS, although all were suggested by IS scholars in a survey by Lowry and colleagues. We also use the same sample of 21 journals in Lowry et al. with the same methods of analysis so far as possible. With the narrow sample, we replicate Lowry et al. as closely as we can, whereas with the broader sample we employ a conceptual replication. This latter replication also employs alternative methods. For example, we consider citations (a quality measure) and centrality (a relevance measure in this context) as distinct, rather than merging them as in Lowry et al. High centrality scores from the sample of 73 journals do not necessarily indicate close connections with IS. Therefore, we determine which journals are of high quality and closely connected with the Basket and with their sample. These results support the broad purpose of Lowry et al., finding a wider set of high quality and relevant journals than just MISQ and ISR, and find a wider set of relevant, top quality journals

The Concept of Creativity in the Information Systems Discipline: Past, Present, and Prospects

In 1993 Couger et al. stated in an MIS Quarterly article on creativity in information systems (IS) organizations that the topic of creativity is under-researched in the IS discipline. Is the subject of creativity—despite its undisputable importance for individuals, organizations, and societies—still a neglected area in IS research? In what contexts, with what methods, and with what results have IS researchers studied the phenomenon of creativity? And what creativity-related themes warrant further investigation? In this article we analyze, based on six analytical dimensions, IS studies on creativity published in the eight top-ranked IS journals as recommended by the Association for Information Systems. The analysis provides a detailed picture of how the concept of creativity has been treated in our discipline’s arguably most influential publication outlets. It becomes apparent that IS researchers have been predominantly employing a rather limited number of research designs aiming at a rather limited number of creativity-related topics. Grounded in our analysis, we discuss the prospects of creativity research in the IS discipline and provide a future research agenda. In doing so, we propose three main research themes that can meaningfully contribute to our discipline

Factors Influencing the Extent of Co-Authorship in IS Research: An Empirical Investigation

The extent of co-authorship in IS research is on the rise. Why has collaboration between IS academics increased? While prior research on the incidence of co-authorship provides several reasons for why academics collaborate, little is known about whether these rationales are equally adept at explaining the growing extent of co-authorship. To answer this question, we delve into extant research on collaboration and delineate four rationales for why papers have more co-authors. These include information processing, access to social resources, convenience, and the opportunity cost of time. We formulate several variables and propose several hypotheses based on these rationales. We collected data by coding 641 papers from six major U.S. and European journals. The results generally support the proposed hypotheses. We discuss the implications of the results in terms of how they inform the field and policy makers

Research Mode and Contribution in Interorganizational Information Systems Research

We develop a model to analyze the body of knowledge of the information systems (IS) field where research accumulates through the interplay of different modes: discovery, prescriptive, and evaluation. The paper proposes five signature contributions: 1) descriptions of discovery and exploration, 2) elaborations of IS-based means and means-ends propositions, 3) discussions of IS-based designs, 4) explanations of the impacts and impact mechanisms of IS, and 5) discussions of organizational theories of IS-phenomena. We argue that each of these contributions plays an important role in the accumulation of the body of knowledge. In particular, we call for a balance in approaches producing these different contributions. Results from analyzing two samples of published interorganizational information systems (IOS) research in high-tier information systems journal outlets from 1982-2010 supports the applicability of the framework as a useful way to categorize the research stream. In line with prior suggestions, we also found an increased tendency towards explanatory organizational theories in that less work has focused on discovering new practices, developing means, and evaluating their uses. Recent interest in academically rigorous design science research offers a welcome addition to the body of IS research that could broaden its base and enrich its content and contributions