Why the old world cannot publish? Overcoming challenges in publishing high-impact IS research

Transcription

1 (2007) 16, & 2007 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved X/07 $ OPINION PIECE Overcoming challenges in publishing high-impact IS research Kalle Lyytinen 1, Richard Baskerville 2, Juhani Iivari 3 and Dov Te eni 4 1 Department of Information Systems, The Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Ohio, U.S.A.; 2 Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.; 3 Department of Information Processing Science, University of Oulu, Finland; 4 Faculty of Management, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel Correspondence: Kalle Lyytinen, Department of Information Systems, The Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Ohio , U.S.A. Tel: þ ; Fax: þ ; kalle@cwru.edu Accepted: 31 July 2007 Abstract We review the status of European publishing in high-impact Information System (IS) journals finding that the European publication record is disappointing. We consider popular explanations to this state of affairs and find them neither credible nor useful for improving the European record. We propose several constructive reasons for this including (1) the lack of appreciation of the article genre, (2) weak publishing cultures, (3) inadequate Ph.D. preparation for article publishing, (4) weak reviewing practices, (5) poorer command of research methods, (6) poorer understanding of the reviewing protocols, and (7) institutional shaping of research funding in Europe. We formulate several recommendations to affect these causes at the individual, institutional, journal, and European community level. (2007) 16, doi: /palgrave.ejis Keywords: IS; publishing; reviewing; publication genres; research communities Introduction Elite journals are characterized by guarded channels of knowledge representation and distribution backed by stringent peer review protocols. They draw upon strong reputation systems and apply rigorous quantitative indices for acceptance, reputations of editorial boards, and impact assessment. European Information System (IS) research presence in the elite journals is disappointing: the pages of these journals are occupied by far fewer European scholars than the proportional size of the community ought to command. As seasoned editors within high-impact IS journals, and being either educated in Europe and/or located in Europe, we are alarmed by this situation. We ask: why does the old world perform poorly in publishing in IS field, and what can we do about it? By addressing these questions, we stir debate about how European scholars can better engage in high-impact publishing. We argue that the European IS community needs to improve by engaging in a set of actions as outlined in this article. Two main causes affect performance of the old world: (1) a lack of understanding of the journal genre and weak reviewing practices ( Publishing cultures around elite journals section) and (2) institutional factors that shape European research and publishing ( Regimes of truth: dynamic vs static view of knowledge creation during reviews section). With admitted oversimplification and heightened controversy, we reveal typical forms of European scholarship and factors that curb high-impact publishing. The final section offers remedies to improve the situation, recommending how individual European scholars, departments, journals,

2 318 Kalle Lyytinen et al and their communities can increase their high-impact publishing. Before these analyses, we will offer detailed evidence of the state of European publishing ( State of European high-impact publishing section) and critically evaluate some typical explanations for the state of affairs ( Scrutinizing some standard explanations about elite publishing section). State of European high-impact publishing Table 1 indicates that European publishing in highimpact IS journals lacks proportional presence. The table depicts how European scholars have published in the top five IS outlets (MISQ, ISR, JMIS, JAIS, EJIS) between 2000 and 2005 by tabulating the percentage European authors occupy in the overall author pool (author) and the percentage of articles (article) for which at least one European scholar was an author. The numbers are based on the published affiliation information, and thus exclude Europeans who currently work either in the North America or Pacific Rim. These statistics are compared with the publication statistics of the North American and Pacific Rim IS scholars. These five journals were chosen, as they focus solely on IS-related topics, and are located highly in published rankings (see According to Table 1, European scholars range from % of the author pool that has published in the five journals. At the same time, articles in which European scholars participate constitute % of the articles. The situation grows grim when we observe the meager success in journals ranked as the two top journals in the field: Management Information Systems Quarterly (MISQ) and Information Systems Research (ISR). In these journals, European scholars comprised 3 6% of the author pool and % of the articles. The numbers for other journals with a global reach Journal of Management Information Systems (JMIS) and Journal of the Association of Information Systems (JAIS) are no better. They range from 7.8 to 9.3% in authors and % in papers. These numbers are alarming because European IS scholars constitute about 25% of all IS scholars on the globe. The included journals are not regional journals with a North American mission, but publications with global editorial boards. If European scholars were to publish their fair share the numbers should be 3 5 times higher in all four journals. European publication numbers are far better in top European outlets. We included for comparison the (EJIS) in Table 1. In EJIS, 63% of the authors and 70% of the papers are European. The comparative difference with North American scholarship is however not that striking nearly 30% of the authors and articles published in EJIS were of North American origin; approximately, the proportional size of the North American community globally. North American scholars contribute only about 10% less in EJIS than their proportion among all IS scholars in the world. European scholars would need to triple their presence in ISR, MISQ, JAIS, or JMIS to attain similar proportionality! We do not have access to actual submission numbers and real acceptance rates across different regions and cannot say whether Europeans are more or less successful in getting their papers accepted. Based on our experience in these journals, we feel that the real publication figures provide a good proxy for the actual differences European scholars are surely not more successful in getting their papers accepted, and thus the low number is an outcome of either low submission rates, or less than average performance during reviews, or both. The above statistics show also that Pacific Rim scholars publish proportionally less. The reasons for this may be more subtle and different. Academic institutions in the Pacific Rim are generally younger, its economic development more recent, and there are additional cultural barriers. We also note a recent, marked improvement in Pacific Rim scholarship. Scrutinizing some standard explanations about elite publishing In discussions with our European colleagues, these imbalances are attributed to: (1) Europeans do not publish extensively because they carry out a different Table 1 Publications by North American, European, and Pacific Rim scholars in EJIS, ISR, JAIS, JMIS, and MISQ between MISQ ISR JMIS JAIS EJIS Total US Author % % % % % % Paper % % % % % % Europe Author % % % % % % Paper % % % % % % Asia/Pacific Rim Author % % % % % % Paper % % % % % % Total Author Paper

3 Kalle Lyytinen et al 319 type of research that is ignored and unrecognized by elite journals, (2) the reviewers and editors in the top journals are North American, and they neither understand nor do they want to publish European research, 3) Europeans do not submit to these journals as there are no incentives to do so, and (4) the European academic system is federated and has diverse expectations of good academic performance and publishing. While appealing, these claims are neither particularly convincing nor fruitful for improving European publishing. First, there are many counter-examples (discussed at length below). Second, such claims communicate a misunderstanding of how elite journals operate in filtering articles. Third, these explanations accept the status quo and offer no constructive way to improve European publishing. Are European scholars really excluded due to the type of research they do? There is the mantra that European scholars do significantly more qualitative or theoretical (i.e., philosophical) work and such research is not valued in high-impact journals. Indeed, Europeans publish significantly higher numbers of qualitative research (Avgerou et al., 1999; Galliers & Whitley, 2007). European scholars formed also the main core of the community that fought for the qualitative turn two decades ago, winning recognition and rightful assessment. The first part of the mantra is true, the second passé. All journals reviewed above proclaim their openness to research of any form, method, or theoretical leaning as long as the submitted work is original, well conducted, and well written. Many of them in particular JAIS and MISQ invite and pursue vigorously theoretical pieces and promote articles that seek to establish new or controversial theory (see, e.g., January 2007 Editorial in MISQ at archivist/edstates.html or the editorial mission of JAIS at Having worked as editors in these journals, we know that these statements are not merely a lip service. The senior editors truly believe in the journal s mission and want to engage multiple research communities and theoretical viewpoints. They often go to great pains in finding the best expertise and sympathetic reviewers for articles that are qualitative, critical, etc. So, we contend that the low European presence in top journals cannot be attributed to unrecognized value in qualitative or theoretical articles. At the same time we note that in general, there are fewer qualitative or conceptual pieces in these outlets (Chen & Hirschheim, 2004). Based on our experience as editors of tens of articles in these journals, we claim that the reason for this situation is that qualitative or theoretical research is more difficult to do to conform to a high standard of logic and writing expected in top journals, and therefore also more difficult to get accepted! Yet, once accepted, such qualitative and theoretical articles may become ground-breaking as evidenced by multiple best paper awards in MISQ during the last 5 years (see It is rather the highyield/high-risk combination that we face here not a bias against a research style that European scholars prioritize. Are editors truly biased toward North American reviewers and editors? The second explanation is that European research is not accepted because the submitted pieces are reviewed by North American scholars. Though the number of reviewers and editors coming from North America is significantly larger than those from other regions, the current reviewer and editor pools do not significantly over-represent North American scholars. In fact, the reverse is true. For example, MISQ and JAIS have nearly the double proportion of European SEs and four times more European editorial board members than proportional to European content. The exception here is ISR where the proportion of Europeans is 2% (one person). This is mainly due to the difficulty in finding qualified editorial board members from Europe who would know the standards of the journal (e.g., have published in it). This is clearly a chicken egg problem (private communication with Wallabh Sambamurthy, EIC of ISR). Moreover, most senior editors follow judiciously policies where they carefully balance the review pools when reviewing a submitted piece. In fact, European editors and reviewers reject proportionally higher numbers of European submissions, as they are more likely to receive these submissions based on their local expertise. Do European scholars truly lack incentives to publish in top journals? It is true Europeans do not have the same incentives to publish in the elite publications. The publish or perish syndrome is more prevalent in the U.S. where academics live and breathe by publishing rankings and hit scores, while the coercive and mimetic pressures have remained more relaxed in Europe. But this does not mean that such pressures are alien or static in Europe. We are unaware of any European scholar unrecognized in their academic assessments, tenure decisions, etc., for having published in high-impact journals. In fact, expectations to publish in such outlets are now standard in Europe, as national assessments of academic performance have become increasingly uniform. For example, all European research agencies we know of emphasize publishing in the top journals and carefully incorporate the journal s impact factors in academic assessments. (We base this on Kalle Lyytinen s survey among the editorial board members of JAIS and our engagements in academic assessments in the listed European countries.) Europeans face an increased (coercive) institutional pressure to publish in the elite journals, while we see a growing gap between the institutionally mustered expectations and the actual performance among Europeans in the IS field.

4 320 Kalle Lyytinen et al Is the European academic system truly different? Our experiences in writing statements for chaired positions or writing review letters across European countries indicates that it is no longer true that the European system is fragmented and draws solely upon local standards. During the last decade, uniform standards of academic performance have become common. It is also our perception that the European IS community does comparatively worse than other academic disciplines in Europe, for example, computer science, organization theory, strategy, accounting, or psychology. This should trouble European IS scholars as funding agencies assessment criteria become more uniform across disciplines. Publishing cultures around elite journals Publishing high-impact research certainly requires versatile research skills, good writing skills, and thorough socialization into a research culture. One also needs resilience and luck. Plenty of European scholars have all these qualities. But many European IS scholars fail to understand that skills in high-impact publishing are even more distinctive than other forms of scholarship. Top journal articles are launched within a scholarly culture that deeply shapes (and is shaped by) the communication behaviors of journal editors, reviewers, and the journal s audience. Articles submitted for top journals must not only be good in terms of their composition, their research excellence, and their conceptual contribution, but they must also conform to the audience s expectations of acceptable knowledge claims. What might be the culture of IS scholars who follow, review for, edit, and publish in the elite journals? Its common values can be denoted as regimes of truth shared by these scholars (Straub et al., 1994; Introna & Whittaker, 2004). This culture could be weak in the European IS community where many scholars have not yet been socialized into it. The slow enculturation to beliefs about the qualities of high-impact research may explain differences in research performance. We identify six themes consisting of values, principles, and norms, which an author aspiring to publish in elite journals must understand. These include shared beliefs about (1) the contribution, (2) the writing, (3) the orientation, (4) the goals, (5) what counts as valid knowledge claim and how you communicate it, and (6) the reviewing benefit. Contribution: great leap vs incremental advance The readership of the top IS journals values incremental advances in knowledge. Overall, this is a recent phenomenon and stems from the death of the scholarly book. It is not a surprising development, since the increased availability of journal indexing, bibliographic databases, and access systems (e.g., Google scholar) makes the search within journal articles more effective than a search of book content. Indexing and access combined with tightened merit criteria, scholars shorter attention span, rapid pace of change in knowledge, and a larger number of scholars expecting merit recognition has led to the dominance of the journal article and to some extent, peer-reviewed conference articles. Books permit the author the latitude to make great leap contributions and cruise thoroughly across a plethora of foundations while piling up extensive definitions and assumptions that are necessary before making conclusive knowledge claims. They also permit prolonged reviews of literature to confirm the author s authoritative scholarship. Attempts to make such greatleap contributions within a journal article require writing skills that most scholars do not possess, or demand efforts that most scholars do not have time to endow. Generating any text that includes all necessary arguments about the definition and assumption space, amasses all related research into multiple points, as well as makes all central points, results in long and intricate papers. Publishing it in a top-level journal becomes an endless struggle with conflicting demands of reviewers and editors while grappling with a painful process of concise written expression. Few review panels have the patience to wisely balance the value of the findings against the length, and most will at every turn complain about the article s complexity. In the journal genre, scientific progress is also viewed to be incremental and great-leap revolutions are rare and difficult. Occasionally, some great revolutionary papers get published. In most cases they emerge after the fact. Yet, the dominant publishing cultures are geared against such publications due to the review panel s interest in avoiding Type I errors. A strategy to follow great leap research questions a more common attribute among European scholars is surely not the easiest path to elite journal publication. Incremental articles are short, direct, to-the-point, and focus on a single question based on an assumption ground that has been established elsewhere. A publication that includes a lengthy formulation of grounding assumptions must be divided into multiple separate pieces. A book-length contribution converts to a program of research in the journal genre. Earlier papers about the assumptions permit the author to deliver the empirical findings in later papers. The program itself remains complex and uncertain, because journal publishing labors each paper in the series with prolonged review cycles. Early papers necessary to establish the assumption ground are difficult to motivate and publish. They look like collections of purposeless definitions, speculations, and examples while reviewer panels expect convincing and useful results. But, the more interesting results can be published only after the assumption space is established and the reviewers understand what the author is talking about. It is a catch-22 dilemma. Such a program is even more difficult for those whose scholarly culture has inculcated the importance of the broad intellectual contributions. Accordingly, the skills and resilience to navigate and execute research programs are more often lacking among European scholars. Yet quite paradoxically, the major European journals such as EJIS and ISJ have stringent page limits (6000 and 7000 words,

5 Kalle Lyytinen et al 321 respectively) while journals such as JAIS and MISQ do not have any such limits. Writing: poetic vs technical Scholars with a strong leaning toward the humanities value poetry over prose, whereas elite journal articles value prose over poetry. For top journals, efficient expression is essential and boring text is preferred over eloquent prose. Yet, Europeans prefer to be poets. Their poetic writing style, when masterfully followed, provides texts, which are entertaining and full of surprises. They convey the richness of the author s sense-making by evoking multiple layers of meaning. Unfortunately, this writing style as often clouds the argument with elaborate phrasing, complex grammar, and shifting terminology. The meaning and plot needs to be teased out through repeated (and for the scientist, tedious) readings before the intellectual bounty can be claimed. Orientation: philosophy vs science Many scholars trained in a classical European university tradition are inculcated with a deep appreciation of philosophy as the highest form of thought. Primary criteria on which to judge the quality of the philosophical article include the comprehensiveness of the underlying literature, careful disposing of alternative explanations, the vividness of the argument, and the care exercised in spelling out the logic to reach the conclusion. This tradition values intellectual ways in which the author exercises reason in inexorably arguing for the conclusions no matter how controversial (and interesting) they are at the end. But most members of the IS community have been trained in technical universities or sciences, or even the worse in business schools. They are inculcated with a deep appreciation of science. Primary criteria on which to judge the quality of the article in these settings include its empirical foundations, the clarity of formulating the research question, the infallibility of the research design, and the degree to which the evidence leads to an undeniable conclusion about causality. What promotes the scientific orientation in top journals is its ability to succinctly express the basis for reaching conclusions. Statements of design and facts can be passed briefly. Connections between constructs can be expressed with mathematical formalisms that occupy a few lines for a complex expression of ideas or in functional box-designs. The depth of the philosophical argument is more difficult to compress into succinct terms, and generalizations from these require subjective or the worse questionable, abstractions and extensive elaboration. The consequent length becomes excessive for an acceptable journal article. The supremacy of science provides a setting in which journal-length articles are privileged. Goal: universal knowledge vs tenure or promotion No one denies that the ultimate goal of any submission in top journals is the creation, preservation, or distribution of new, original, and credible knowledge as stated in the elite journal s mission statements. But in many cases, the practical goals are pragmatic career needs the famous publish-or-perish syndrome. As noted above, although most European research universities have started to operate with the publish-or-perish mind set, it is not their only indication of research productivity. In publishor-perish, the credit obtained from top journal publications provides the direct and often the only path to career advances. In this context, the goal of creating, preserving, and distributing knowledge ceases to become an end value. Instead, it becomes a means by which the scholar survives. The ultimate goal is tenure or promotion, and the top journal publications are the means. The focus moves from generating great knowledge to creating and persevering in strong publication cultures where reaching the top is the game. This focal shift affects all spheres of scholarship from the selection of research questions to approaches to writing and reviewing. The most important audience is the review panels that make or break the article. Since journal review panels are made up from top experts, the review panels bring two tendencies into the process. First, their interests are narrowly focused in an esoteric subarea. Second, they represent the primary stakeholders of the status quo. These tendencies privilege research papers that focus narrowly on esoteric sub-areas over sweeping conceptual or methodology papers with a wider pragmatic appeal a tendency more apparent in Europe (we will discuss this in Institutional context of research section). The review panel is also heavily committed to the dominant beliefs in the sub-area, and will privilege articles that reinforce current beliefs over articles that challenge existing beliefs (Broad & Wade, 1983; Chubin & Hackett, 1990). Submissions challenging beliefs in the current body of knowledge again a tendency strongly valued among European scholars will face high acceptance barriers. They demand excellent writing and rhetorical skills, and authors need to be lucky in having open-minded review panels. These tendencies are well known and represent the general scholarly culture in sciences (Latour, 1987). The most successful strategy for publishing in top journals settles on existing research questions using scientific method by seeking to extend, elaborate, and validate theories that already operate in the sub-area. Such papers are written for critical, knowledgeable readers and rest on high levels of common ground. This ground is typically established in environments that run systematic and rigorous Ph.D. programs where both theory and methodology skills are emphasized. This is a feature more often lacking in Europe (as discussed below). Such carefully positioned articles are friendly to the minds of the well-prepared expert scholars who comprise the review panel, while making these papers accessible to

6 322 Kalle Lyytinen et al the wider readership tends to get ignored unless the editors intervene. Regimes of truth: dynamic vs static view of knowledge creation during reviews Authors need to understand the dynamics of expectations among editors and reviewers at different stages because these form the basis whereby knowledge claims become acceptable. These stages embody a complex web of knowledge transfers: editors and reviewers must understand and appreciate the knowledge authors seek to advance, authors and reviewers must understand editors, and authors and editors must understand reviewers. To be successful, the authors need to properly communicate their contributions during the review, and skillfully perceive the expectations of reviewers and editors. The success of such knowledge transfers depends on multiple, fragile communication processes: author editor, author reviewers, editors reviewers, and between the authors and their colleagues. At each stage, knowledge is exchanged with the intent of reaching mutual understanding and/or affecting the relationships. It is vital that these communication processes are open, critical, and carefully articulated. Reviews are a process of continuous knowledge construction not just a process of knowledge assessment. Overall, preparation for this process is better in North America (see below). Reviewing involves dynamic processes; revising, expanding, and challenging portions of the regime of truth for that journal, that is, determining its acceptable knowledge claims (Introna & Whittaker, 2004). Recent and forthcoming publications constantly reshape the regime. Successful authors understand swings in the prevailing perspectives held by the editors. Examples include shifting directions in dilemmas between rigor and relevance (Benbasat and Zmud, 1999), or the expected salience of IT as a criterion for acceptance (Benbasat and Zmud, 2003; DeSanctis, 2003). Authors can create a common ground that improves knowledge transfer by engaging these dynamics. An easy way for authors to keep abreast about knowledge claim acceptability is by being an active member in the reviewing community a benefit more likely to be found in North American training. Reviewing benefit: destructive vs constructive Do the top IS journals only publish incremental, pedestrian, esoteric, scientific studies that reinforce the status quo? In one sense this is exactly the case, because elite journals seek to publish well-grounded, rigorously executed, careful, focused, methodical studies that effectively communicate within a single article the purported knowledge claims. The articles satisfy a panel of experts and their understanding of regimes of truth in that they deem knowledge claims to be new, credible. and interesting. This process can be gamed, but it also seeks to judiciously filter out research that is not novel and credible, uninteresting, poorly grounded, or carelessly executed. The filtering draws upon reviewers and editors understanding of the regimes of truth, and the review panel becomes the ultimate gatekeeper and guarantor of knowledge claims. This essential principle shapes all elite journal publishing again a culture that is less common in Europe. Reviewers in the top panels are not only worldclass experts, but aspire to build up constructive critiques of submitted pieces. Perhaps, this is the most important Popperian learning process found in science: panel members voluntarily assume a gate-keeping role that includes mentoring the authors like Socratic midwives. It is remarkable that this process unfolds on such a large scale. All reviewers will readily highlight wide-ranging problems with article. Some problems are substantial, for example, grounding, formulating the research question, documenting the research design, or execution. The issues may extend to writing style. Alone, such problem-bashing is easy, but destructive. Poorly engaged reviewers stop there. Better reviewing skills, which are often honed in the North American doctoral programs, teach reviewers to take care and effort in also highlighting the strengths of the article. The top reviewers are distinguished by their exceptional insight and strong editorial bent. They make suggestions about how the article can be fixed, even while recommending a rejection. These suggestions include additional readings, alternative research designs, and even better phrasing of key ideas, and refinement of the contribution. Some top journals are famous for the substance and length of their reviews (many times, the reviews can be as long as the submitted articles) again a feature that is more common in publication cultures in North America. This additional care from top journal review panels is less frequent in lower echelons of scholarly publications. Less-engaged reviewers lack the time or the skills to make constructive reviews that expand community learning. This feature of the elite journal reviews is important, because world-class scholarship builds cumulatively upon episodes of learning within peer networks among the panel members: authors, reviewers, and editors. Reviewers identify problems in articles and offer solutions, in this way becoming better researchers themselves. The relationship between high-quality reviewing and highquality authorship is tighter than many realize. Lacking the journal focus, the European culture has lagged in establishing this vital link between strong reviewing and strong authorship. The appearance that elite journals are connected with a seemingly closed community of scholars (the old boys and old girls network) arises in fact as much from reviewing patterns as from authorship patterns. Geographic boundaries between scholarly communities are not only outcomes of variance in scholarly interest and mentoring relationships, but also actual obligations to dedicate time and care for services supporting the community at large in particular

7 Kalle Lyytinen et al 323 reviews. This care pays off for the community with faster learning and more substantial knowledge gains. Institutional factors impeding publishing in elite journals There are institutional factors working to maintain the cultural barriers that limit European presence in top journals. The most salient of these institutional factors include: (1) language and writing barriers, (2) Ph.D. preparation, (3) institutional shaping of research, and (4) research funding. Language and writing barriers There should be no significant differences in writing skills between European and North American scholars. Yet, their styles of writing do differ significantly. A freshly minted Ph.D. from North America gains significant advantage from the amount of writing required and the continuous feedback received during the Ph.D. education. Not only do European programs demand less writing and offer less feedback, the majority of European writers operate in English as their second or third language, creating a significant disadvantage. The writer s native language always influences his or her thinking and shapes his or her writing. While thinking in a particular language can be a conceptual advantage, communicating in a different language substantially increases the workload (and the disadvantages). On the one hand, reviewers and editors of elite journals could and should improve in their abilities to manage differing writing styles (especially grammar and vocabulary). On the other hand, many European authors are unaware of how to overcome this disadvantage. They fail to carefully copyedit articles and do not use native speakers to check for grammar and writing. After crawling through inordinate amounts of sloppy writing and careless editing in the manuscripts submitted by Europeans, editors and reviewers will attribute the problems to sloppy thinking and poor development of ideas that have not been carefully articulated and reviewed before the submission. A scholarly culture that undervalues careful writing and composition reflects one that may also undervalue careful research. Ph.D. preparation The second difference is the organization and goals of the Ph.D. education shaped by educational institutions. The following idealized and extreme characterization is meant to point out essential differences in the institutional environments. In reality, many Ph.D. programs are located somewhere in the middle. North American scholars enter mainly the ranks of academics through a relatively thorough Ph.D. training that lasts in average 4 5 years. This training focuses primarily on honing methodological skills, substantive theory skills (not philosophy!), and thorough reading in the elite journals. Students acquire extensive practical research skills through broad participation in faculty research projects the leg work. Ph.D. students constantly engage in writing scholarly texts, submitting yearly student reports and conference papers, and assignments in Ph.D. courses. Education focuses in elaborating and advancing scholarly skills that are expected to prepare the aspiring candidate to conduct research successfully throughout their careers (not just write up the Ph.D. thesis). The training includes socialization and enculturation into the scholarly communities and learning their behaviors. Routine, compulsory reviewing (both as reviewee and reviewer) form an essential part of this socialization. The training decreases the output variance and guarantees minimum shared research skills that are deemed necessary in the current regime of truth. There is less focus on advancing specific theories, research lines, or, in particular, making leaps in knowledge. To an extent, this education limits students discretion to pursue their own research interests. The traditional European model is nearly the opposite: maximum freedom for students to pursue their intellectual curiosity. There is less focus on systematic methodological training, weaker enculturation into the research community as reviewers of leading journals, and little control of student s progress in research skills. Many times, Ph.D. theses are produced to address practical problems within industry; for example, innovative workflow designs or modeling methods. At worst, the work involves minimal training in shared research skills and little preparation for a successful research career. Similar patterns exist for early appointment decisions, and these lack guidance for systematic academic career planning. In contrast, the North American academic system establishes early on incentives and goals from the start: defining tenure criteria, maintaining outlet rankings, and reviewing faculty plans for their academic contributions. This system is more open, competitive, and transparent, and it is institutionally enforced and legitimized. Institutional context of research An article for elite journals satisfies two central goals in its of truth. First, its research problem must be viewed as a plausible research question in light of current theory: theoretically interesting with a potential for substantial knowledge gains. Sometimes, the question must be demonstrably relevant for practice. Second, the article must be methodologically sound; that is, lead to knowledge claims that are credible and can be rigorously defended. We will next review how the European institutional context shapes the achievement of these goals. Theory Typical European studies emphasize more either novelty of the knowledge contribution revolutions or they seek to solve practical problems. Their regime of truth clashes with the expectations framed within elite journals, which ground their regimes of truth in strong theory expansions that come in increments, refinements, and validations. Theory is not viewed here

8 324 Kalle Lyytinen et al solely as an epistemic concept: the theory card acts as a critical argumentative device for constructing convincing reasons behind knowledge claims. Papers in elite journals tend to establish practical relevance through the strong-theory-will-lead-to-practical-implications principle (Iivari et al., 2004). In contrast, European IS researchers often view IS as an applied discipline where practical relevance and/or design constructions dominate. European scholars seek to introduce changes in practice by building better tools or methods while expecting theory implications of these changes down the line. Because authors in elite journals typically construct elite journal articles in nearly the opposite way, the tool/method-first contributions though valuable for some stakeholders fit poorly the current regimes of truth. Methodological soundness Because elite journals prefer methodical rigor that allows credible evidence building, quantitative methods have prevailed as a dominating form of evidence giving. Due to differences in Ph.D. education, many European IS scholars are not well trained in quantitative methods, and have limited quantitative skills. Some European scholars, to our surprise, are even hostile to incorporating well-rounded quantitative skills into Ph.D. educational programs. This hostility reflects a poor understanding of the role and value of such methods, and their ontological and epistemological implications. Importantly, elite journals also expect rigor in qualitative methods. Knowledge produced in a qualitative mode must be as credible and rigorously grounded as that in quantitative modes. Although qualitative modes are more prevalent in Europe, North American IS scholars are currently stronger in qualitative research skills, benefiting from programs that focus on rigor in every research mode. Because of the lack of institutional enforcement and unified support, European research will remain handicapped until methodological skills are significantly emphasized and European scholars sharpen their methodological competencies. Institutional priorities of research topics on industryfocused R&D Because European IS researchers have better industry contacts, practical problems dominate research education. Over the past two decades, industrial funding priorities set by the European Community (EU) or national funding agencies have deepened this pragmatic industry orientation. Such funding to IS-related topics requires collaborating with industry partners, but it does not prioritize top-level publications because of time pressures or increasingly intellectual property issues. In itself, the practice view is not detrimental to good theoretical research. But intense research industry engagements sap time and energy away from publication and decreases Europeans motivation to publish in elite journals. As a result, short-term pragmatic concerns of technology design/use often eclipse theoretical generalizations and long-term impact. In addition, EU-funded projects involve a distracting bureaucracy, laboring the application and research process by requiring participation from several EU countries. Coordination of multiple research activities to deliver project packages consumes overall research effort and often trivializes theory building and publication into a structured R&D project. The high costs of application privilege also industrial R&D behemoths that rarely provide for innovative theory-driven research, or endure lengthy review cycles of top-level publishing. These collective trends have decelerated progress toward strong IS research and publishing cultures in Europe. The road ahead Action is needed at several levels. What can individual European scholars do to improve their presence in the top journals? How can European academic institutions improve doctoral education and research publication cultures? What can we do to change the regimes of truth in top journals to make these more receptive for a European style of research? How can the European research community improve its publishing culture? Our recommendations are summarized in Table 2 and discussed below. Individual scholars European scholars could better internalize the five prominent values that shape top-level publishing: (1) the contribution, (2) the writing, (3) the orientation, (4) the goal, and (5) the reviewing benefit. These values shape the behaviors of the editors and reviewers and lead to successful high-impact publishing. Recognizing that European scholars are currently disadvantaged in these areas, individuals could actively adopt measures to overcome current limitations. To learn this culture, prospective authors must actively participate in research communities; start the enculturation during the formative years of scholarship by reading regularly the elite journals provides the best introduction to their reading and writing cultures; orchestrate systematically what to read and how much to read; and participate in consortia that prepare for reviews and authorship and participate in review panels until reviewing becomes an integral part of one s scholarship. Once the author knows deeply what has been published in the past, how the reviews are carried out, and how to manage the knowledge transfer during the process, then his is more likely to be able to successfully craft submissions. Success in publishing and reviewing in a journal leads to further participation in its community. It is an entry to a network of scholarship as an active reviewer, and later an editor, who increasingly shares and maintains similar values in publishing and writing. Departmental policies Departments can increase awareness of top-level journals, promote active readership in these journals, and recognize realistically the value of

9 Kalle Lyytinen et al 325 Table 2 Policies to improve European IS publishing Policy and activity level Recommendations Individual IS scholars 1. Engage and participate in reviewing pools and networks 2. Collaborate with scholars who have published or edit in top-level journals 3. Attend elite journal workshops on publishing including JAIS theory writing workshop, MISQ author workshops, and ICIS and other doctoral consortia 4. Follow systematically and actively research streams in top journals 5. Improve method skills 6. Improve writing skills and understanding of article genres and how to execute research programs Departments and Research Institutions 1. Improve awareness of top-level publishing and align incentives accordingly 2. Develop systematic Ph.D. programs that emphasize method, substantive theory, and writing skills, and decrease and control variance in outputs 3. Invest in research cultures that value reviewing within the departments and for the journals with a critical mass 4. Promote faculty s participation in reviewing and editing in journals Journal s Regimes of Truth 1. Continue to invite and support European participation in the review panels and editorial boards 2. Promote European style of research through special issues and being flexible and applying new sets of acceptance criteria for different submissions European IS research policies 1. Generate awareness of the urgency and necessity to improve the situation in ECIS, national AIS chapters, and other institutions 2. Develop and organize more systematic Pan European training for Ph.D. students and junior faculty to publish successfully in top-level journals 3. Develop awareness of the necessity to fund and promote research that allows and support top-level publishing at the European level, 4. Increase collaboration with North American Research Universities and NSF programs publishing in these journals. Acknowledge and reward an active, strong research-and-review culture that builds up research skills and invigorates theory development among faculty. Accompany this promotion with systematic and rigorous Ph.D. curriculum development that creates stronger theory and methodology skills. Ph.D. programs should prioritize systematic learning in research methods both quantitative and qualitative as fundamental transferable skills. Finally, the policies should emphasize the role of high-quality reviewing for conferences and journals, and this should be taught as part of the Ph.D. education. Journal policies Top journals should revise their regimes of truth to recognize the value of innovative theory building, practical relevance, and methodological plurality in IS research all aspects that would permit European scholars to become more productive. Our rough judgment is that the top journals review process weights about 12.5 % innovativeness, 42.5% theory, 42.5% methodology, and 2.5% practical relevance (Straub et al., 1994). For special issues and selected research topics, the distribution is about 20% innovativeness, 35% theory, 35% methodology, and 10% practical relevance. Adjusting the norm of the general weights to that of the special weights would better open new opportunities for some research communities. By changing the top-level IS article archetype would significantly improve chances for publishing European IS research. Research methods also need further balancing. Chen & Hirschheim (2004) report that 45% of published articles in top journals are quantitative, 11% qualitative, and 39% non-empirical. Balancing this distribution, say, 33% each, even for some topics, would likely improve European presence in elite journals, but this will only happen if care is taken to adopt rigorous qualitative methods. In particular, increasing recognition of design science as a viable research model for IS provides opportunities for European scholars. Computer science and software engineering research has traditionally been more prevalent in European IS research. Expanding the non-empirical category with more constructive, designscience research favors European traditions, and encourages European scholars to increase industry synergies for design research projects that draw upon theory. One further way to open opportunities is to encourage European scholars participate as guest editors for special issues. We have had some success in such endeavors in the past as notable changes in the distributions of published articles took place in special issues in MISQ we edited around action research (MISQ 2004, 3), and standardization (MISQ 2006, 5). Community If low publishing productivity is seen as a critical issue that affects the long-term viability of the European IS research, it becomes by definition a European IS community issue. It would help to develop more systematic guidelines on IS Ph.D. education across

10 326 Kalle Lyytinen et al Europe, and to build training initiatives for both Ph.D. students and junior faculty. Such guideline development and training could be developed as part of ECIS conferences, national and regional AIS chapters, or through separate funding from the European Union, research councils, etc. There are good models from Pan European initiatives in biology, economics, and physics. Finally, the European IS research community should actively reshape EU funding policies to recognize the values of publishing in top-level journals, to promote theory-based research, and seek to organize more systematic research collaboration with their North American colleagues and NSF. Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge comments and critiques from Detmar Straub, Mike Gallivan, Carol Saunders, Vallabh Sambamurthy, John King, and participants who attended the panel on European Publishing at ECIS 2006 in Gothenburg. About the authors Kalle Lyytinen is Iris S. Wolstein Professor, Case Western Reserve University, U.S.A., adjunct professor at University of Jyvaskyla, Finland, and visiting professor at University of Loughborough, U.K. He has published over 180 scientific articles and conference papers and edited or written 11 books. He is the Editor-in-Chief of Journal of AIS and serves on the editorial boards of several leading IS and requirements engineering journals. He is currently involved in research projects that looks at the IT-induced radical innovation in software development, IT innovation in architecture, engineering and construction industry, requirements discovery, and modeling for large scale systems, and the adoption of broadband wireless services in the U.K., South Korea, and the U.S. Richard Baskerville is Professor in the Department of Computer Information Systems, J. Mack Robinson College of Business at Georgia State University. His research specializes in security of information systems, methods of information systems design and development, and the interaction of information systems and organizations. He is the author of Designing Information Systems Security (John Wiley) and more than 100 articles in scholarly journals, practitioner magazines, and edited books. He is an editor of The European Journal of Information Systems, and associated with the editorial boards of The Information Systems Journal and The Journal of Database Management. Juhani Iivari is Professor in Information Systems at the University of Oulu, Finland, and the Scientific Head of the INFWEST Education Program in the area of in information systems. His research interest lies in theoretical foundations of information systems, ISD methodologies and approaches, acceptance of IT applications, IS quality, and in the relationship between information systems and knowledge work. He is a senior editor of Journal of AIS and serves in editorial boards of MIS Quarterly and six other IS journals. Dov Te eni is Professor of IS at Tel-Aviv University. He studies several related areas of IS: human computer interaction, computer support for communication, knowledge management, systems design, and non-profit organizations. His research usually combines model building, laboratory experiments, and development of prototypes like Spider and kmail. He is co-author of Human computer interaction for organizations (Wiley). He serves as Senior Editor for MIS Quarterly and associate editor for Journal of AIS, Information and Organizations, and Internet Research. He is conference co-chair of ICIS2008 in Paris. References AVGEROU C, SIEMER J and BJORN-ANDERSEN N (1999) The academic field of information systems in Europe. 8(2), BENBASAT I and ZMUD R (1999) Empirical research in information systems: the practice of relevance. MIS Quarterly 23(1), BENBASAT I and ZMUD R (2003) The identity crisis within the IS discipline: defining and communicating the discipline s core properties. MIS Quarterly 27(2), BOLAND RJ and TENKASI RV (1995) Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organization Science 6(4), BROAD WandWADE N (1983) Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science. Simon and Schuster, New York. CHEN WS and HIRSCHHEIM R (2004) A paradigmatic and methodological examination of information systems research from 1991 to Information Systems Journal 14(3), CHUBIN DE and HACKETT EJ (1990) Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy. State University of New York Press, Buffalo. DESANCTIS G (2003) The social life of information systems research: a response to Benbasat and Zmud s call for returning to the IT artifact. Journal of the Association for the Information Systems 4, GALLIERS R and WHITLEY E (2007) Vive les Differences? Developing a profile of European information systems research as a basis for international comparisons. 16(1), IIVARI J, HIRSCHHEIM R and KLEIN HK (2004) Towards a distinctive body of knowledge for information systems experts: coding ISD process knowledge in two IS journals. Information Systems Journal 14(4), INTRONA L and WHITTAKER L (2004) Journals, truth and politics: the case of MIS quarterly. In Information Systems Research: Relevant Theory and Informed Practice (WOOD-HARPER T, DEGROSS JI, KAPLAN B, TRUEX DP and WASTELL D, Eds), pp , Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. LATOUR B (1987) Science in Action. Harvard University Press, Boston. MISQ (2004) Special issue on action research in information systems. MISQ 28(3), MISQ (2006) Special issue on standard making. MISQ 30(Special Issue), STRAUB D, SOON A and EVARISTO R (1994) Normative standards for MIS research. Database 25(1),