[AISWorld] Senior Scholars Journal Basket Survey

Fri Apr 8 21:03:37 EDT 2016

Democratic-based decisions are usually flawed. However, this debate is no
on the value or usefulness of a set of journals classified by the same
control system as best ones, but on the final effects on the advance of a
discipline and its contribution to the praxis. Top journals (MIS
Quarterly, ISR, and others) have privileged some group of researchers,
research topics and research settings. This is the claim. Example: a
current 2016 call for papers of MIS Quarterly on Complexity reports
"Furthermore,
methodological developments such as agent-based simulation,
high-dimensional statistical techniques, visualization tools, datamining
tools, and large-scale dynamic network modeling, together with the
increasing availability of user- and machine-generated
trace data enable scholars to explore how sociotechnical, complex
ecosystems emerge and evolve in digital worlds". On particular, on
agent-based simulation and complexity issues top journals in our
discipline had ignored it. See for instance: Holland (1992, p.1) "... one
of the most important roles a computer can play is to act as a simulator"
such as "complex adaptive systems". Papers on top journals (like the
Senior's basket ones) have accepted and published papers on complexity but
they have ignored seminal literature (no published in tops journals). A
recent paper rejected in one of these top journals (without no initial
review by lack of relevance) reports it and remarks the contribution and
need of MAS (multi-agent simulations). So, finally it is true that status
quo will be not changed but some of the senior researchers can identify
that our discipline needs a re-engineering.

References:

Holland, J. H. (1992). Complex adaptive systems. Daedalus, 17-30.

Mora, M. et al. (forthcoming, 2016). The Evolution of the Business-IT
Strategic Alignment Process: Key Insights and Emergent Views from a
40-year Period (1975-2014). IJBIS, (SCOPUS indexed).

On Fri, April 8, 2016 2:48 pm, Cecil Eng Huang Chua wrote:
> (1) "Forum-based democracy" is flawed in that strong opinions tend to get
> posts.  I am trying to partially rectify that by putting up a voice for a
> group of people that perhaps prefer to remain silent.  That group is the
> people who use or intend to use the senior scholar basket as a political
> tool to get access to limited resources- promotions, tenure, grant money,
> etc.
>
> (2) My experience with the Senior Scholar Journal Basket has been it is a
> useful tool for justifying that I am a good researcher to people who
> don't understand what I am doing.  My survival and relative success in
> the field is in part due to my having this tool to use.  Thank you very
> much senior scholars for coming up with this tool.
>
> (3) The senior scholars are saying that they recognize some groups might
> be under-represented.  They're coming up and telling folks to please
> state why they are under-represented and to provide cogent arguments.  I
> like to see this in producers of tools.  I like them to always ask, "How
> can I make the tool better for you?"
>
> (4) In the world of tools, the tools that win are tools that are used.
> If you really want to reject the senior scholar basket, propose an
> alternative tool, offer it to the marketplace, and see if we pick it up.
> For me, the senior scholar basket wins over several other tools I have
> used in the past, including various institutional target journal lists,
> and ranking surveys of quality journals.  I recognize some comments here
> have already suggested alternatives.
>
> (5) Here are some affordances of the senior scholar basket
>
>
> - It is relatively small.  This allows us to say, "there was a screening
> process." - It is anointed by people who are recognized both within the IS
> community, and those external to the IS community as good IS researchers.
> This confers a certain degree of legitimacy over the list.
> - The list correlates with other measures of journal quality.  MIS
> Quarterly and ISR appear repeatedly in other lists.  They appear in the
> senior scholar list.
>
> (6) That being said, the senior scholar basket isn't perfect.  When I
> need to justify another journal, I use another tool.  For example, I
> justify that I&M is a good journal, because it is on the ABDC list, a
> list that has legitimacy in Australia and New Zealand.
>
> (7) In conclusion, the senior scholar basket is a tool in a marketplace
> of tools.  All the flak it s receiving is to me like people who say, "MS
> Word sucks."  Fun to have the debate, but at the end, its kind of
> meaningless cause we all use it anyway- I, by the way, use MS Word 2003
> and LaTeX.  I have not upgraded to the newer versions, because they suck-
> can't stand Ribbon.
>
> I wish we'd be a little bit more like the martial arts community in this.
> In that community, they debate the relative merits of aikido vs. kung fu
> vs, judo, etc.  But there's an underlying recognition that it isn't about
> the martial art.  Its about the martial artist.
>
> Cecil Chua
> _______________________________________________
> AISWorld mailing list
> AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org
>
>