[AISWorld] On top journals with low acceptance rate and value delivering to IT professional community

Tue Jun 7 12:44:09 EDT 2022

Dear João and all,

I have for years been advocating for the adoption of certain (positive)
aspects of the medical discipline for our own research and education
practices.
See: Schwartz, D. G. (2014). Research commentary—the disciplines of
information: Lessons from the history of the discipline of medicine.
*Information
Systems Research*, *25*(2), 205-221. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2014.0516

In addition to the excellent points that you raise regarding three types of
research, and the important synergies between hospital/clinic/patient/MD in
the organizational context, the medical field also benefits from a clear
definition of core knowledge (that which all MDs are required to study and
know), and wide ranging specializations (which allow for growth of the
field from the common core). This did not occur overnight and is the result
of a 100+ year process of unification and specialization which had
tremendous disciplinary benefits.

Medical specialization was the result of a number of motivators and
environmental factors. It was the pragmatic outgrowth of the evolution of
the field and the impacts of environment and technology. One might even be
tempted to say that it was a sociotechnical result. But it was also the
result of a conceptual leap taken by John Morgan, founder of university
medical education in the United States, in his discourse of 1765 (Gelfand
1976). It would take almost 100 years for the ideas crystallized by Morgan
to significantly alter the medical landscape. We don’t have that long.
Despite some clear differences between the discipline of medicine and the
Disciplines of Information (DI) at scientific, academic, and practical
levels, there remains a strong and clear parallel between the factors that
led to today’s conceptualization of the medical field. Following Freidson
(1988) the identification and analysis of these factors makes it clear that
we have much to learn from the history of medicine. Much work remains to be
done in characterizing what will become the core and specialties of DI;
what institutional ecology will result; and how specialization would be
determined, accredited, and maintained.

Perhaps the time has come for a working committee to systematically try and
determine what aspects of the medical disciplinary structure we would be
wise to adopt.

Refs:
Freidson E (1988) Profession of Medicine: A Study of the Sociology of
Applied Knowledge (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).
Gelfand T (1976) The origins of a modern concept of medical specialization:
John Morgan’s Discourse of 1765. Bull. Hist. Medicine 50(4):511–535.

--David
-----------------------------------------------
David G. Schwartz
Professor of Information Systems
Graduate School of Business
Bar-Ilan University, Israel

On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 7:07 PM João Alvaro Carvalho <jac at dsi.uminho.pt>
wrote:

> Hi José and Michael,
>
> In the first message, José compares IS research with medical research.
>
> It called my attention because I have been looking into medical research,
> trying to establish the parallel with IS.
>
> In medical research there is a well established distinction among 3 types
> of research: basic/blue skies research; translational research; and
> clinical research: the first is driven by curiosity; the second aims at
> creating new “treatments"; the third aims at establishing the effectiveness
> of “treatments”.
> Clinical research typically involves practitioners. They get involved in
> clinical research with their own patients or involving the patients of the
> hospital they work in. Thus, practitioners are also producers of research
> reports. Not mere consumers.
> I would say that medical practitioners (ate least some) look into reports
> of translational research when looking for novel treatments for some
> disease they are interested in, and they look into reports of clinical
> research looking for evidence about the effectiveness of the
> existing/alternative treatments for a disease.
> This is particularly true when practitioners follow evidence-based
> medicine practices.
>
> In the case of IS we miss several of the components I mentioned above.
> A lot of (most) IS research is basic/blue skies research.
> DSR takes us close to translational research. However, a few differences
> can be mentioned.
>
> We seldom have clinical research.
> We lack a systematic catalogue of diseases.
> We lack a systematic catalogue of treatments, with all the elements we
> found in the leaflet of any medicament we get from a pharmacy.
> Furthermore, evidence-based practice is far from being established.
> I recognise that medicine is much better organised. OK, it is much mature.
> After all it is one of the oldest professions in the world… ;-)
>
> But I believe that we can learn a lot from it.
> Not just in the research facet. I also mean the way research is entangled
> with practice. And the way practitioners get involved in teaching.
> And the way students get involved into practice, since early in their
> programs, and at the final stage of their training.
> I understand that the differences between IS and medicine, prevent us from
> “importing” all the package of medicine.
> But several things could be done. As soon as possible.
>
> Regards,
>
> João
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7 Jun 2022, at 01:45, JOSE MANUEL MORA TAVAREZ <jose.mora at edu.uaa.mx>
> wrote:
> >
> > Prof. Ioannadis is a top cited researcher (over 400,000 citations). This
> next paper has over 11,000 citations:
> >
> > Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med.
> 2005; 2(8):e124. PMID: 16060722
> >
> > There are interesting replies on this top paper clarifying the previous
> strong assertion at:
> >
> > Stroebe, W. (2016). Are most published social psychological findings
> false?. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 134-144.
> > "Ioannidis´ claim is valid only for one-shot studies without replication
> and with a low a priori probability that the tested hypothesis is true."
> >
> >
> > Lydersen, S., & Langaas, M. (2021). What proportion of published
> research findings are false?. Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening.
> > "Ioannidis produced a model which was based on a number of assumptions
> in various study designs. The assumptions may appear realistic, but it is a
> weakness that they to not build on data."
> >
> >
> > Diekmann, A. (2011). Are most published research findings false?.
> Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 231(5-6), 628-635.
> > "This short note sketches the argument and explores under what
> conditions the assertion holds. The “positive predictive value” (PPV) is
> lower than 1/2 if the a priori probability of the truth of a hypothesis is
> low. However, computation of the PPV includes only significant results. If
> both significant and non-significant results are taken into account the
> “total error ratio” (TER) will not exceed 1/2 provided no extremely large
> publication bias is present. "
> >
> > but most interesting recommendation from Ioannadis (2016) on what is
> useful research:
> >
> > "Many of the features that make clinical research useful can be
> identified, including those relating to problem base, context placement,
> information gain, pragmatism, patient centeredness, value for money,
> feasibility, and transparency" (Ioannadis, 2016; p.1).
> >
> > From a practitioner perspective, many medical practitioners consult
> medical research journals to search for insights and clues and it is
> impossible at present in IS top research.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > Prof. Dr. José Manuel Mora Tavarez
> > Depto. de Sistemas de Información
> > Centro de Ciencias Básicas
> > Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes
> > Ave. Universidad 940
> > Aguascalientes, AGS. México 20131
> > Email: jose.mora at edu.uaa.mx
> > <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Manuel_Mora>
> > ResearchGate Weblink<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Manuel_Mora>
> > <https://scholar.google.com.mx/citations?user=97rTgbkAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra>
> > Scholar Google Weblink<
> https://scholar.google.com.mx/citations?user=97rTgbkAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra>
> > Linkedin Weblink<https://www.linkedin.com/in/manuel-mora-engd-37b03a1/>
> > SCOPUS Weblink<
> https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=25823339800>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Michael Myers <m.myers at auckland.ac.nz>
> > Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 4:57 PM
> > To: AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org <aisworld at lists.aisnet.org>
> > Cc: JOSE MANUEL MORA TAVAREZ <jose.mora at edu.uaa.mx>
> > Subject: RE: On top journals with low acceptance rate and value
> delivering to IT profes
> > sional community
> >
> >
> > Most medical research is not very useful either. For example, some
> estimates suggest that only about 10% of drug trials are successful. For
> more info, see:
> >
> >
> >
> > Citation: Ioannidis JPA (2016) Why Most Clinical Research Is Not Useful.
> PLoS Med 13(6): e1002049. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002049<
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1002049&data=05%7C01%7Cjose.mora%40edu.uaa.mx%7C9b9e6cc6409d4c28fa3408da48078d92%7Ce1e2e29221d64849b7104d47d9578ad0%7C0%7C0%7C637901494532715543%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8VaAPO%2BtyfAC%2F8wVQfsMw5zYSEQfM9TZnUY4hK7TG8Q%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > But until you actually conduct some research, how can you find out?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: AISWorld <aisworld-bounces at lists.aisnet.org> On Behalf Of JOSE
> MANUEL MORA TAVAREZ
> > Sent: Tuesday, 7 June 2022 9:28 AM
> > To: AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org
> > Subject: [AISWorld] On top journals with low acceptance rate and value
> delivering to IT professional community
> >
> >
> >
> > It is not expected that practitioners from any discipline were usual
> readers of scientific journals, but it should be ethically expected that
> scientific journals in any discipline produce knowledge that can be used -
> after adaptations or simplifications - in real interventions by
> practitioners, like medical research. Top MIS journals in the 70s and 80s
> achieved this mission but at present days, is it true? Multiple
> micro-problems are studied and selectively published (about 5% of
> acceptance) in top journals but I estimate the same percentage of 5% will
> be useful for practitioners in the next 5 years. Then, are we delivering
> value for the real population of interest in our discipline?
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Manuel Mora, EngD.
> > Full-time Professor and Researcher Level C
> > ACM Senior Member / SNI Member
> > Department of Information Systems
> > Autonomous University of Aguascalientes
> > Ave. Universidad 940
> > Aguascalientes, AGS
> > Mexico, 20131
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AISWorld mailing list
> AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org
>