Nick and Jan venture into new publishing territory. We talk with the fabulous , one of the information systems department editors at , about journal procedures, reviewer expectations, and innovations in the review process. We discuss how our field nurtures multiple communities that all share the aim of advancing information systems knowledge and scholarship. And it’s fair to say that both Nick and Jan now have Management Science more on the radar screen as an information systems outlet than before we produced this episode. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

ChatGPT is back in our podcast one more time. Last time we talked about its impact on the academic enterprise. But ChatGPT is also the key digital technology issue of our time. It should be researched, of course, and we information systems researchers should jump on the opportunity to learn more about it. What are some of the questions that surround ChatGPT and similar forms of generative artificial intelligence? We look at a few research ideas at the individual, collective, firm, and economic level. And we conclude that whatever topic people are researching, their key challenge will be to theorize about what’s different with generative artificial intelligence and what is not. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

Or maybe it did not. Who knows? ChatGPT is here for the world to see and not even our podcast can avoid talking about it. All the firms we know have long started exploring ChatGPT and other generative AI technologies. Will generative AI also change the academic enterprise? Some suggest it already has. We think we are at the cusp of changes, both in degree and in kind. ChatGPT may help people get started and may even alleviate some of the laborious research tasks but at the end of the day, the academic profession is a person-centric profession built around individual expertise, trust, and honesty of knowledgeable academics. You cannot automate that.  As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

IS as a field has the same problem that IT departments have in organizations - we think those other people should come to us with their questions about digitalization and benefit from our decades of wisdom! But we argue that this is not going to happen. It is our job (as it is the IT manager's job) to make the case for how we can help. OK, so that's a portion of what we talk about today. We actually meander a bit. We jump across a whole lot of topics, from IS' status as a reference discipline, the quarrels of IT departments with other business divisions, what our favorite conferences are, how to engage with conversations occurring in other fields, and what is so special about Taylor Swift. So it’s all over the place. But the good news is we laugh a lot and future episodes will be more focused again, we promise. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

Someone asked us to do an episode on books that shifted our thinking. So here we are and we each brought two books that changed the way we look at the world when we read them. We discuss these books and what new things they told us. And of course, it’s turning into a showoff about who remembers more from these books. And suffice to say: Jan loses this battle.   As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

What are the secrets to publishing qualitative papers? We have no idea but does – after all he is one of the most prolific and impactful scholars on technology and organizing of our time. We grab the opportunity and ask him for his secret tricks. Together, we reflect on fancy words, detailed method descriptions, obligatory Glaser and Strauss citations, and how many books you really need to read before doing an inductive study. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

Summer is over, all wine is consumed, and all vegetables harvested. Time for this IS research to get back to work. We kick off the new season by talking about questionable research practices – HARKing, p-hacking, fishing for asterisks, data dredging, and so on. Nick digs out an old paper Jan wrote, and we use it to discuss the situations in which HARKing might be commonsense or outright unethical and we try to identify how best to protect against questionable research practices.  As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

After talking about the big theories from the past millennium, it is time to talk about the ideas that emerged after the year 2000. From sociomaterality and two-sided markets to temporal networks, modularity, and routine dynamics – contemporary scholarship is ripe with new ideas that warrant further development, empirical exploration, and rigorous testing. It is truly a wonderful time to be an information systems scholar! And just on the side, we set a new record for material referenced on the podcast. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

It feels like a long time ago now but one of the main reasons we started this podcast was because there was a pandemic going on that impacted our ability to manage work and private life. Is there anything we should have learned from that time? What changed since then if anything and what may still need changing? We talk about this with . She did research on the impact of the pandemic on the productivity of IS researchers, which allows us now to discuss what the broader takeaways are from that time for our field. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

Many people do service to their community but usually one thing at a time. Today we speak with someone who is not only president of our global association and co-chair of our main conference at the same time but also the editor-in-chief of one of our top journals, .  clearly cannot say no – he even agreed to talk with us on the podcast. We discuss the expanding scope of scholarship that he wants to see published in Information Systems Research, the different roles that editors must play, how the Association for Information Systems made our field truly global, and what wonderful things we can expect from in Hyderabad, India.  As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

We have a very special guest, , who is both the founding and current editor-in-chief of the . He founded the journal in 1984 and he has been the only editor-in-chief ever since. Also, he has no intention of handing the reins to anyone else soon. We discuss what sets JMIS apart from the other top journals in our field, what the IS world looked like at the time when the journal was founded, and whether our discipline has moved into a better space since those early days (spoiler alert: yes, it has).  As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

What are the big ideas and streams of thinking from before the turn of the millennium that have shaped our field and may still be relevant today? For once, we did some homework to review some of the theories from before the year 2000 that we think everyone should know about. So whether you are studying AI or algorithmic aversion, digital transformation or digital innovation, you have no business continuing your research without knowing these gems from the past. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

Time to tie up some loose ends. We learned so much from our guests in the previous three episodes and we touched on so many topics that we feel we need to revisit some of these. So we once again discuss what we think about the new list of eleven premier journals, we discuss what good career advice looks like in different regions of IS scholarship, and we begin to wonder whether all theories are truly equal. And of course, we are figuring out which of us is the alpha male on this podcast. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

We continue our series of episodes in which we talk about several of the most important journals in our field. Today, we speak with , editor-in-chief of the . We talk about several innovations the journal has implemented and the range of genres that are welcome. We also talk about what makes truly great papers different and what distinguishes a literature review from a theoretical paper. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

We are starting a new series of episodes in which we talk about several of the most important journals in our field. We kick things off with , the editor-in-chief of the . We talk about the history and the role of the journal in our field, what initiatives are underway to move the field forward, and of course what matters when you are trying to publish in this journal. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

The decided to expand their list of designated “premier journals” in our field from 8 to 11. What does this mean? How are these decisions being made? Who makes these decisions? We explore these questions with our good old friend who has been a member of the task force that championed this decision. With her, we discuss politics in the information systems community, the governance of our community, and the question of how our journals and conferences could or should operate. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

We can talk about impactful, joyful, and meaningful research all we want, but most of us just want to get published. Literally, our careers depend on it. So how do we do it? what are little secrets that turn good research into great papers, that get you over the line from rejection candidate to conditional acceptance? We discuss some of the techniques we use ourselves, that we see others use, and that we come across as editors. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

Research is a collaborative effort. Most of the time, we are not writing papers alone but together with others. Sometimes we lead the effort, sometimes we are the second author, sometimes we only have a small role to play. Coauthoring papers often leads to tensions, frustrations and disappointments. Are there any rules about co-authorship? We think there are. We give you four rules about how to be the best co-author. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

Teaching is done for many of us, we’ve had main our conference, our papers and revisions are submitted. What’s left to do? Rewind, reflect, and celebrate the great work accomplished this year. And given that n = 2 equals a tradition, we dish out awards this year just like last year. This time, we celebrate the year’s most trailblazing theories, the most innovative methods, the most timely case studies, and the best design research artifacts. Tune in and listen, make sure to read the great exemplar works, and follow us also in 2023 when we return. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

Researchers do not care about philosophy because it adds no value to their experiment. They just go out into the world and do their work. So say some if not many scientists, but disagrees. With him we discuss whether some questions of philosophy such as ontology and epistemology even matter to information systems research, which topics and questions lend themselves to philosophical reasoning, and whether we can disassociate philosophical ideas from the people that proposed them. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .