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 .

Our top journal is called MIS Quarterly, not Causality Quarterly. Or is it? How should we go about building and testing causal explanations in our research and how do different approaches to causality complement each other? We invited , , , and as our guests. They recently published an editorial on this topic and we use this opportunity to pick their brains about experiments, econometrics, counterfactual, correlational and configurational views of establishing causality. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

Can we theorize with the best scholars sociology has to offer? Perhaps we are not quite as bad with jargon monoxide as they are. We do pay more attention to technology than they do. On the other hand, our chase of new technology and our publish or perish paradigm are stopping us from even trying to do the big, timeless stuff. So if you are interested in our lengthy rant about jargon, social theory, institutions, sociomateriality and publishing, tune in and enjoy. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

Nick is annoyed with accepting cookies on websites and wonders if the transactional "notice and choice" approach really does anything to benefit the world. So what's the alternative? We asked the expert to join our podcast again and chat with us about this.  We ask whether there really is a "privacy paradox", how fields such as information systems, engineering, law, and ethics and others approach this topic, and whether we are paternalistic elitists or not. Then Kirsten unplugs Nick's Wi-Fi so he quits interrupting her… As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

Did you know you have to search engine-optimize your papers? Makes sense now that you know it, doesn’t it. We wish we would have known years ago. We sift through some of the most recent papers on how to write good papers and contrast them with our own experiences. Turns out we all wish we could change the title of our papers in hindsight. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

It’s late at night. Only because Jan has been asked to talk about something he knows very little about so we asked someone at the other side of the planet for help – the wonderful . With her on the show, it is finally time to talk about design science, clichés and stereotypes. We wonder whether more people write about doing design science than actually do design science, how scholarly design research has to be, and why might be the most successful design scientist of all time. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

Journals are really all about their editors. So when journals are bad, it really means editors were bad. But what do we mean by that and what should editors do instead? Of course, as usual we have our own views. So tune in and listen as we share our stories of “the worst things an editor can do.”   As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

This IS research is back for its fourth season. We start off by discussing the journal space for information systems researchers. What are our top journals, what are differences between them and how should authors decide where to submit their work? Tune in to find out. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

Andrew van de Ven passed away but there are other scholars out there that push the idea of engaged scholarship further. One of these is from Australia. He joins us to share his thoughts about whether papers or researchers should be relevant, why impact can be an intrinsic motivation, and why our research artifacts should not only be valid and reliable but also beautiful. As usual, the references to all readings we mention are listed on .

We venture into unknown territories. We team up with our friends Alex and Philipp from the German podcast “”, which comes out of the Vienna University of Economics and Business and is run by PhD students , , , and . If you understand German – or aspire to learn it – you should follow their podcast. Together, we discuss what makes a great or a good PhD student, whether PhD students need to create a researcher identity for themselves, and how academics can deal with envy. As usual, the references to all readings we mention are listed on .

June is here and a new paper is out that argues that empirical patterns are publishable in our top journals. Really? Really. In this episode, Jan plays the interviewer and Nick is the interviewee in what is essentially a Q&A session about computationally intensive theory construction, which Nick argues will be a key part of the future of information systems research. As usual, the references to all readings we mention are listed on .