This CAIS debate marks the sixth debate since the debate section’s inception in 2014. Cuellar, Truex, and Takeda (2019) oppose the current approach of counting articles in ranked venues as a basis for personal promotion and a measure for the field’s advancement and argue, grounded on their Habermasian critical standing, that such an approach limits what they consider democratic discourse in the field, hinders a fair assessment of all contributions to the field beyond those that the field’s top-ranked journals publish, and, thus, hinders the field’s advancement.
Kautz, K. (2019). Debate Section Editorial Note: 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.04409