Shaping the landscape of research in information systems from the perspective of editorial boards: A scientometric study of 77 leading journals

Cabanac, Guillaume

doi:10.1002/asi.22609

Cited by 32 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The EAB sizes of IS journals vary from 15 to 93 with a mean value of 46.6 (Table 1), sizes consistent with those in Cabanac's (2012) study of 77 IS journals. The distribution of ABS scores for IS journals is not significantly different from that for the overall ABS set of journals (Chi = 2.75, p = 0.432), suggesting that in terms of ABS quality scores, IS journals are no more diverse than the general population of business and management journals.…”

Section: Findings Sample Demographicssupporting

confidence: 78%

“…Researchers have introduced a novel approach recently by using social network analysis (SNA) (Scott 2003, Wasserman andFaust 1999) to gain insight into the important aspect of journal governance Barabesi 2010, Burgess andShaw 2010). More recently EABs of information systems journals have been examined using scientometrics (Cabanac 2012) and SNA (Baccini and Barabesi 2011), although the latter study combined information and library sciences.…”

Section: Eabs Of Journals Are Important In the Context Of Diversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Research Commentary—Diversity of the Information Systems Research Field: A Journal Governance Perspective

Burgess¹,

Grimshaw²,

Shaw³

2017

Information Systems Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diversity has attracted much attention within the information systems (IS) field, with literature concentrating on diversity in topics and methods. These constitute two of three identified areas of research field diversity; the little-investigated third area includes demographic and social diversity of researchers. This study explores this gap for researchers comprising the editorial advisory boards (EABs) of 52 IS journals and links the underexplored types of diversity to topic diversity. The journals are categorized into seven intellectual communities, using topic affinity of journal content, and a social network of EAB members constructed from board interlocks. The network structure appears to reflect the topic-based community links. Journal communities are aggregated into two components of the social network: a business-school-related core set of journals and a more diverse computing- and engineering-related periphery. The strong ties at the network center do not necessarily reflect journal status. The observed combination of focus and diversity is consistent with a polycentric view of the IS field. Findings suggest low demographic diversity in the field and that demographic diversity correlates with other types of diversity. The field’s separation into business core and computing periphery is highlighted as potentially challenging to the IS field’s identity.

show abstract

Section: Findings Sample Demographicssupporting

confidence: 78%

Section: Eabs Of Journals Are Important In the Context Of Diversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Commentary—Diversity of the Information Systems Research Field: A Journal Governance Perspective

Burgess¹,

Grimshaw²,

Shaw³

2017

Information Systems Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nowadays, authors have an interest in publishing in journals with the highest possible impact factor, and, therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that first-quartile journals accept more documents than fourth-quartile journals. This supposition bear out bear out previous work, like Cabanac (2012), stating that the range of papers accepted per journal is wider for the first-quartile than for the other quartiles.…”

Section: Questions Hypotheses and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 65%

Relationship among research collaboration, number of documents and number of citations: a case study in Spanish computer science production in 2000–2009

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper analyzes the relationship among research collaboration, number of documents and number of citations of computer science research activity. It analyzes the number of documents and citations and how they vary by number of authors. They are also analyzed (according to author set cardinality) under different circumstances, that is, when documents are written in different types of collaboration, when documents are published in different document types, when documents are published in different computer science subdisciplines, and, finally, when documents are published by journals with different impact factor quartiles. To investigate the above relationships, this paper analyzes the publications listed in the Web of Science and produced by active Spanish university professors between 2000 and 2009, working in the computer science field. Analyzing all documents, we show that the highest percentage of documents are published by three authors, whereas single-authored documents account for the lowest percentage. By number of citations, there is no positive association between the author cardinality and citation impact. Statistical tests show that documents written by two authors receive more citations per document and year than documents published by more authors. In contrast, results do not show statistically significant differences between documents published by two authors and one author. The research findings suggest that international collaboration results on average in publications with higher citation rates than national and institutional collaborations. We also find differences regarding citation rates between journals and conferences, across different computer science subdisciplines and journal quartiles as expected. Finally, our impression is that the collaborative level (number of authors per document) will increase in the coming years, and documents published by three or four authors will be the trend in computer science literature.

show abstract

“…However, Cho$et$al.,$p.$7" surveys in economics (Addis & Villa 2003;Green 1998), medicine (Galley & Colvin 2013;122" Keiser, Utzinger & Singer 2003), management (Metz & Harzing 2012), information systems 123" (Cabanac 2012), and anthropology (Stark et al 1997) have found comparable disparities in the 124" gender composition of editorial boards. Assuming the results for our focal journals are 125"…”

Section: "mentioning

confidence: 99%

Women are underrepresented on the editorial boards of journals in environmental biology and natural resource management

Cho

Johnson

Schuman

et al. 2014

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

18"Despite women earning similar numbers of graduate degrees as men in STEM disciplines, they 19" are underrepresented in upper level positions in both academia and industry. Editorial board 20" memberships are an important example of such positions; membership is both a professional 21" honor in recognition of achievement and an opportunity for professional advancement. We 22" surveyed 10 highly regarded journals in environmental biology, natural resource management, 23"and plant sciences to quantify the number of women on their editorial boards and in positions of 24" editorial leadership from 1985-2013. We found that during this time period, only 16% of 25" editorial board members were women, with more pronounced disparities in positions of editorial 26" leadership (i.e., Associate Editors, Editors-in-Chief). Although the trend was towards 27" improvement over time, there was surprising variation between journals. We argue editorial 28" boards should strive for gender parity to increase the number of women afforded the 29" opportunities and benefits that accompany membership, as well as increase the number of role 30" models and mentors for early-career scientists and students. 31"PeerJ PrePrints | http://dx.doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.369v2 | CC-BY 4.0 Open Access |

show abstract

Shaping the landscape of research in information systems from the perspective of editorial boards: A scientometric study of 77 leading journals

Cited by 32 publications

References 71 publications

Research Commentary—Diversity of the Information Systems Research Field: A Journal Governance Perspective

Research Commentary—Diversity of the Information Systems Research Field: A Journal Governance Perspective

Relationship among research collaboration, number of documents and number of citations: a case study in Spanish computer science production in 2000–2009

Women are underrepresented on the editorial boards of journals in environmental biology and natural resource management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About