Cuellar, Truex, and Tajeda (2019) take the position that counting the number of articles published in ranked venues is an inappropriate method of evaluating the scholarly performance of faculty. They base their contention on a number of unfounded assertions and unsupported arguments, which the author details and analyzes. They propose an alternative evaluation criterion, which they call the “scholarly capital model”. In this rejoinder, I critique this model and find it wanting.
Anderson, R. (2019). A Response to “Reconsidering Counting Articles in Ranked Venues (CARV) as the Appropriate Evaluation Criteria for the Advancement of Democratic Discourse in the IS Field”. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 44, pp-pp. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.04414