About this Journal
About AIS Publications
The Association for Information Systems (AIS) publishes three electronic journals - The Journal of the Association for Information Systems (JAIS), the Communications of the Associatoin for Information Systems (CAIS), and beginning in 2009, the Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction (THCI). These journals are complementary. In terms of content, each of them fulfills the role usually associated with the terms "journal," "communications," and "transactions." The Journal is a classical, peer reviewed outlet for research with every intention of being equal to the best in the field. JAIS publishes monthly. The Communications is intended to foster the free flow of ideas within the IS community. It offers authors the option of full review and expedited editorial review. Its emphasis is on originality, importance, and cogency of ideas. It is also a vehicle for tutorials, curriculum guidelines, case studies, survey articles, and other materials of general interest to the IS community. The Transactions is intended to be a high quality research journal that serves a particular IS research area. It uses peer review and publishes quarterly.
Articles should be submitted to one of the journals in accordance with its content. In case of doubt as to which journal is most appropriate for a particular article, the authors may consult any of the editors in chief to help determine the most appropriate outlet before submission.
JAIS is theory focused journal. Therefore, JAIS does not publish or review manuscripts that focus solely on a specific steps or techniques associated with research methodologies. For example, manuscripts, which reveal or discuss barriers in reaching statistical conclusion validity, or which provide guidelines or tutorials for conducting research following a specific research approach are not deemed suitable. JAIS does not deny the high value of such articles for the IS community, but recommends, instead, that such articles are to be submitted to the CAIS for review. JAIS welcomes, however, manuscripts where the applied method or methodology is inherently related to ongoing theory formulation or validation. These manuscripts need to demonstrate, for example, how a specific methodology choice can confound or promote various aspects of theory building or theory testing, and where the study results and / or theoretical implications would be demonstrably different depending on the methodology choices. In cases where the authors are in doubt of the appropriateness of their manuscript for JAIS we ask the authors to consult the Editor In Chief.
About JAIS
The Journal of the Association for Information Systems (JAIS), the flagship research journal of the Association for Information Systems, publishes the highest quality scholarship in the field of information systems. JAIS is inclusive in scope and covers all aspects of Information Systems and Information Technology. The Journal publishes rigorously developed and forward looking conceptual and empirical contributions. The Journal encourages multidisciplinary and nontraditional approaches.
Empirical contributions may use any appropriate methodology as long as the research is soundly designed and executed. JAIS particularly welcomes contributions that provide theoretical insights that advance our understanding of information systems and information technology in organizations and society. New insights may include proposing a new theoretical model, challenging or clarifying existing theory, integrating diverse strands of research in information systems so as to advance new concepts and relationships, or developing a compelling argument for the field to develop a new theory.
Given our inclusive perspective, we refrain from delineating explicit topics in which we are interested.
JAIS articles adhere to the highest scholarly research standards as judged by the leading scholars who serve in the Senior and Editorial Boards. Decisions regarding publication of contributions are made by one of the Senior Editors/Editor-in-Chief based on constructive input and recommendations of members of the Editorial Board. A Senior Editor will occasionally use ad-hoc reviewers to solicit additional input and to develop candidates for subsequent Board appointments. Journal of AIS distinguishes itself by closely working with the authors to develop submitted work. Dialog concerning current and future submissions is encouraged between the Senior Editors/Editor-in-Chief and the author. JAIS employs a double "blind" review process in general.
IS Research Perspectives
Senior Editor: , University of Central Florida
IS Research Perspectives is a special section of JAIS. Its overall mission is to introduce and provoke exciting discussion about critical issues that shape the IS research traditions and carry an important message for its research mission. When we say the section focuses on “critical issues,” we are suggesting that this is not about the fads of today. In contrast, we seek to debate and analyze perennial issues in the field that may have been around since its inception, but that are likely to shape the discipline, its formation, and the way in which it makes knowledge claims in the future. To this end, we expect published articles to be widely accessible, but at the same time crisp, rigorous, and scholarly forays into issues that IS scholars value and talk about in the hallways. In particular, we are interested in articles that allow the IS community to come together and reflect upon the community, its organization, and its mission.
Why IS research perspectives?
We are in the midst of significant societal, organizational, and individual change in large part driven by advances in Information Technology (IT). Yet, the academic field of Information Systems (IS) has not done enough to help shape, reflect upon, and/or critique these technological changes and their impact on the ways in which knowledge about these changes are produced, validated, legitimized, and enacted. Our responsibility as intellectual leaders in the IS field is to bravely promote and engage in such discussions.
Like other academic disciplines, IS has been driven both by the dynamics of its own internal academic traditions and external pressures related to the constant onslaught of new technologies. This has resulted in a fragmented adhocracy without sense of a common mission or direction. We are divided by paradigms and going concerns where each community suggests different notions of what IS is and/or what it ought to be. Nor can we agree on what the preferred approaches are for developing or managing IS. This, in itself, is not bad, as experimentation and diversity are the only ways to make sense of the turbulent environment and to learn from it. But as a downside, this has led to a situation where many IS sub-specialties see little "relevance" in the research engagements of others. Such fragmentation will likely get worse as subspecialties spawn new sub-communities, while IT pervades all walks of life and invites new disciplinary engagements. Given that most of these research schools have their own outlets, which generally are directed at their own audiences, it is hardly surprising that a communication deficit has emerged. The current situation is one where research results are reported, but are mostly understandable only to the insiders who spend an extraordinary amount of time with the literature of a specific sub-community. This time commitment makes it impossible for most researchers to keep up with related work in other areas. Add to this the different preferences and canons that constitute "good research," and it is easy to see why the findings of one research community are typically neither known nor valued by another, let alone by researchers from other disciplines or by practitioners. Each of us is stuck in one niche of the literature and loses sight of the greater, overarching issues. There is not enough broad-based debate about overarching issues, let alone exploration of these issues with intellectual vigor. Each community subscribes to its own socially constructed truth. In the current situation, we have an overabundance of specialty papers for in-group members, with the result that the IS community as a whole suffers from a communication deficit. The current publication culture that values narrowly focused, highly specialized papers is good for filling citation indices and improving our individual merit, but it does not necessarily help to make our research more relevant to other colleagues or practitioners.
As a result, the IS community also suffers from a generalization deficit. As a community, we do not effectively generalize and externalize findings from our different communities. Often this is inhibited, for example, by what many consider insufficient evidence. Academic rigor also tends to inhibit such generalizations, using concerns about small sample sizes, old data sets, or loose reference theory as excuses. The generalization deficit affects all research paradigms; yet, it is largely ignored by all. One reason is that such generalization and externalization is inherently very difficult: It demands creative, intellectual leaps to see the general behind the specific and to invent a language to communicate this effectively. Yet, it is not valued in the IS community in the same way that contributions within each specific sub-community are. As a result, at best, benign tolerance or indifference is the order of the day; at worst, we see hostility, mockery, and ridicule.
The IS field faces the challenge of making the research of each community more relevant to others by effectively externalizing its learning to the broader community. Simply, how can we learn to celebrate and value what the others have found instead of ignoring or facing it with hostility? For this to happen, both the quantity and quality of communication between different schools have to increase. We must devote more efforts into discipline-wide discourses to achieve a better understanding of the similarities and differences between us, to learn what is valuable in each research engagement, and to celebrate each other’s achievements.
It is here where we believe a community-serving journal like Journal of the Association for Information Systems can help! It provides a forum where the debate, as well as the opening and externalizing of research ideas and results, can thrive. Without a concerted effort to address the deficits from intellectual leaders in the sub-communities, we cannot work toward a grander synthesis of ideas and results, or generate discoveries at unexplored boundaries. Whilst most journals take a traditional -- and often exclusionary -- stance on what to publish in each of their sub-sections, the IS Research Perspectives section of JAIS strives to be different: It tries to open a debate and dialogue between different IS sub-specialties and offer an outlet for scholars who want to “cross the divide.” It seeks to offer a vehicle for addressing the communication and generalization deficits by discussing what is different and similar in our research, by celebrating each other’s achievements, and by valuing and assessing what is good and insightful in our research. To make this happen, the JAIS IS Research Perspectives section solicits a broader range of articles from the diverse areas that make up the IS domain and that pointedly show the interconnections between their work and others outside their sub-area. By engaging in this debate, JAIS IS Research Perspectives hopes to encourage the IS community to value such contributions. JAIS Research Perspectives wants to become one critical element of the overall JAIS publication mission to change academic "conventions of truth construction" in the IS community by emphasizing the need for generalizations and inferring actionable conclusions of broad interest reaching beyond IS specializations. When these issues are addressed more effectively, we surmise the new vigor of IS research will yield improved benefits that are commensurate with the efforts expended in each sub-community. Another task of the IS Research Perspectives is to be at the forefront in redefining institutional practices related to rigor in research. The idea of rigor needs to be expanded to include a wide range of scholarly inference and evidence, giving, on the one hand, and tightened, on the other, to include the linking of detailed models or hypotheses to broader theory to arrive at expanded categories of knowledge. We believe that this re-definition of rigor can contribute substantially to communications across the narrow boundaries of our sub-communities.
We believe also that the IS community has the motivation, will, and fortitude for engaging in open debate and dialogue. In promoting JAIS Research Perspectives, we offer IS scholars the opportunity, means, and arena to do this. We seek broadly accessible and critical reviews that pull together results from the sub-communities into understandable analyses of potential interest to broader communities. When this happens the mission of the IS Research Perspectives section of JAIS has been fulfilled.
Submitting to IS Research Perspectives
JAIS IS Research Perspectives invites submissions of articles that take a stance on any issue that is of interest to the IS community, but at the same time have lasting scholarly value. We are interested in innovative and provocative treatises from any conceptual, theoretical, methodological, or thematic viewpoint. The overriding objective for the section is to stimulate thinking in the IS field on "things that matter to us" as a scientific community. Examples of critical issues include high-level, institutional analyses of the field (e.g., future of the discipline), meta-theoretical analyses, methodological and philosophical reviews, reviews that bridge theory and practices, as well as intra- or inter-disciplinary analyses. We are particularly interested in research that adopts a critical stance toward current forms of articulating knowledge and legitimizing it. Articles can follow any research methodology (conceptual, design, quantitative, qualitative) and focus on any level of analysis (artifacts, individual, teams, organizations, industries, societies, IS scholarship in different forms). Biblio-metric or socio-metric analyses are acceptable as long as they generalize to critical assessments and reviews. Strong cases for how our research can relate better to practice are deemed highly valuable, specifically when they offer pragmatic solutions on how to strengthen these connections and promote shared understanding. Also valuable are articles that articulate how our teaching responsibilities and missions impact our research and how we might balance such trade-offs.
Rather than provide a list of all possible topics for the section, we offer a list of objectives for publishable articles, which I am hopeful will inspire potential submitters. It is by no means exhaustive. Goals for submissions include the following:
- to provide research and thought leadership for the IS field;
- to shape future research by formulating new research directions or by evaluating the progress of research-to-date
- to argue for or articulate programs of research or discuss how we should allocate our research resources;
- to critique and review chosen methodological practices or approaches;
- to assess the impact of an entire stream of research through scientometric or other methods (e.g., 2007 Special Issue on “Quo Vadis TAM”);
- to raise controversial issues that affect the conduct of research in the profession (e.g., ethical issues surrounding IS research, intellectual property rights issues);
- to debate issues that are critical in determining the direction of future research in the field (e.g., how is social networking transforming organizations as digital natives are now entering them as new members of the workforce?);
- to give new prominence to the issues having to do with IS research policy, general research policies related to IT, or regulation and governance of IT research and education;
- to identify and articulate issues in multidisciplinary discourses or describe how to generate interdisciplinary ties within the IS community;
- to generate excitement about espoused new directions in IS research; and
- to review community structures and power.
The motivation for publishing any article in this section is to create excitement about how the IS field needs to change (or maintain its status quo) in order to thrive as an intellectual enterprise exploring the use of IT in human interactions and the broader society. If you believe that you can present an issue that affects the IS academy and creates excitement, please do consider the IS Research Perspectives section of JAIS as a place to publish. But above all, remember that each Perspective publication must be scholarly as befitting a tier-one academic journal. To have the impact intended, we expect articles in the section to be a major source for IS doctoral courses, and the issues being debated or introduced in the section to be spotlighted at our best conferences. JAIS IS Research Perspectives publishes neither sole surveys nor tutorials, as they do not meet the above goals. Rigorous literature surveys, however, can and need often be a critical element in providing evidence or motivation for the study.
Submit manuscripts to http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jais indicating it as an IS Research Perspective submission. All submissions should follow JAIS submission guidlelines. Articles can be of any length, since JAIS is an electronic journal. Indeed, articles need not be lengthy to have high impact, which is the desired outcome for articles accepted for the section. The shorter ones are often easier to digest. However, all articles, whatever their length, must be tightly written using well-crafted arguments. They must be situated within the broader context of research in terms of quality of argument, strength of the evidence, and rigor of analysis. Although there is no requirement for empirical evidence, this form of reasoning is certainly welcome as long as the essential points can be made succinctly and rigorously. The major evidentiary criteria for successful articles are that they are logical, well written, and satisfactorily address the “So what?” question.
Submissions to the section will be thoroughly refereed, with the review process being no less rigorous than for other JAIS submissions. Submissions will be carefully prescreened by a section senior editor. Only those judged as having a good chance of success will go through the complete review process. The process is more developmental in nature and is designed so that papers progress in no more than two rounds of review after prescreening by the senior editor. If, in the judgment of the senior editor, a paper is unlikely to be publishable with two rounds, it will be rejected.