Printer Friendly

Development of the Journal of Information Systems from the editors' perspectives.

ABSTRACT: This paper provides insights on the creation and development of the Journal of Information Systems (JIS) using the perspectives of its editors and analyses of the evolving content of the journal itself. Both suggest development of the journal over time from its uncertain beginnings to a publication accepted by its academic audience as a high-quality outlet for accounting information systems research. The journal's developmental stage affected both what the editors could do and their vision of challenges and opportunities. Early editors sought resources and high-quality submissions, while later editors had more opportunity to consider direction and reach. The editorship has both positive and negative aspects, with benefits derived from being of service and having an opportunity to influence the quality and direction of an academic journal, and difficulties arising from the need to attract sufficient resources and academic attention, and the time commitment required by the tasks.

Keywords: editors; retrospective; journal development and assessment; journal quality; history of information systems research.

Data Availability: Data will be made available upon written request and justification.


This paper provides, from the editors' perspectives, insights on the creation and development of the Journal of Information Systems (JIS), the research journal of the Information Systems (IS) Section of the American Accounting Association (AAA). This historical commentary is intended to be informative for those seeking to establish an academic journal, authors wanting to learn about editors' motivations and constraints, and IS Section members interested in assessing the development and contributions of JIS.

The JIS editors' comments illustrate the progress of an academic journal, from a developmental stage where it struggled to attract resources and high-quality content to its current status as a widely accepted, high-quality research outlet. Although there are numerous productivity and ranking analyses of accounting journals (Hutchison and White 2003; Samuels and Steinbart 2002; Meyer and Rigsby 2001; Scapens and Bromwich 2001; Daigle and Arnold 2000; Watts 1998; Hasselback and Reinstein 1995; Carnaghan et al. 1994; Arnold 1993; Heck and Bremser 1986; Dyckman and Zeff 1984), none reveal how editors contributed to the development of an academic journal, nor do they examine the influence of the context in which editors work.

JIS has had six editors from its inception in 1986 to the present: Joseph W. Wilkinson (1986-1989); William E. McCarthy (1989-1992); A. Faye Borthick (1992-1998); co-editors Casper E. Wiggins, Jr. and Uday S. Murthy (1998-2001); and Dan N. Stone (2001-current). (1) Each responded to questions from the authors (protocol in the Appendix) in a recorded telephone interview or in writing (Borthick 2002; McCarthy 2002; Stone 2002b; Wiggins and Murthy 2002; Wilkinson 2002). For further information, the authors relied upon productivity and demographic data (Hasselback 1985-2000; issues of JIS from 1986-2001).

This paper is organized into the following sections: editor motivations and challenges, journal purpose and intended audiences, topical areas of the journal, journal strengths and weaknesses, and editor attributes and reflections. The final section offers conclusions about the development of JIS.


Wilkinson, the first editor, recalls that the primary reason for the creation of JIS in 1986 by the AAA Information Systems/Management Advisory Services Section (later the IS Section) was to provide a forum and obtain recognition for accounting information systems (AIS) research. He notes the severe difficulty authors had in publishing AIS articles in accounting academic journals, and the section's desire to help young AIS researchers achieve tenure. Figure 1 provides some data by faculty rank for each year of JIS through 2001 related to the goal of providing an outlet for AIS scholarship and assisting junior faculty achieve tenure and promotion. The number of articles by assistant professors, generally, exceeds that by other faculty ranks. However, the assistant professor numbers have diminished relative to the earlier years of JIS. The need for quality outlets for AIS research still exists: Stone notes in a recent editorial (2002a, 1) that "top" accounting research journals continue to largely "ignore systems and technology research topics."


Wilkinson and McCarthy report their motivation for accepting the editorship was a desire to bring JIS to a point of sustainability and to influence its direction. Wilkinson characterized the initial format decision of including a mix of academic, education, and practice articles as a practical step to elicit sufficient submissions to sustain the journal. Much of this original format has persisted, although the relative focus has shifted to a more academic emphasis.

In addition to his work as editor, McCarthy influenced JIS in its early stages of development by commissioning papers and publishing three editorials addressing the direction of AIS research. Both Wilkinson and McCarthy describe the difficulties related to being editor of a young academic journal: obtaining funding, increasing circulation and acceptance, and obtaining release time to focus on editorial tasks.

Borthick, Wiggins, Murthy, and Stone's comments regarding motivations and challenges turn from establishment (sustainability) and viability (financial and time constraints) toward stewardship and broadening the appeal of JIS. Borthick believes the direction of AIS was still "not very well defined" and wanted to contribute by clarifying its role, while maintaining the high-quality standards for manuscripts established by her predecessors. Wiggins and Murthy indicate that acting as coeditors allowed them the opportunity to serve the IS Section. Stone wants to "make a difference in the future of accounting systems scholarship," and notes that he is fortunate to be at a school that supports his interests. Implicit in these comments is the sense that JIS has reached a level of prestige and impact.

These four editors were concerned not only about submission quality, but also review quality and timeliness. Editors depend heavily on their reviewers. Without timely and constructive reviews, authors will submit their work elsewhere. Borthick recalls using short turnaround times as a marketing tool to increase submissions and personally encourages authors to send manuscripts to JIS. Similarly, Wiggins and Murthy cite as an important accomplishment the timeliness derived from converting to a fully electronic submission and review process. They also identify a need for an increase in submission quality and note a trade-off between publishing a variety of manuscripts and maintaining a high level of quality. Figure 2 details the submission and acceptance rates for 1991 through 2001. (2) The data suggest that in some years there were relatively few submissions and thus few publication-quality manuscripts. As discussed in Samuels and Steinbart (2002), 1996 and 1997 were low points in the number of published articles in JIS. It appears that recent submission rates may be on the increase.


Some editors report the challenge they felt in maintaining their own research programs given the demands of editorship. Notwithstanding the time commitment, Borthick cites the pleasure of seeing the intellectual development of authors and reviewers. Wiggins and Murthy feel that an important motivation for them was obtaining satisfaction from helping others make contributions to the field. They note that assisting authors to improve their work was especially important for papers that had not been exposed at workshops or conferences prior to submission.

Stone emphasizes the challenge of broadening the community of scholars working in AIS while maintaining the support of its base constituency. He wants to accomplish this goal by including research from other accounting areas and related disciplines. He also indicates an interest in submissions from historically underrepresented areas of accounting systems scholarship such as case studies, critical theory, and emerging technologies.


The editors consistently identify the purpose of JIS is to be a high-quality outlet for AIS research directed primarily toward members of the IS Section, the journal's primary stakeholders. The subscription base provides a strong motivation supporting this orientation. In 2002, JIS had 1,083 subscribers comprising 882 section members and 201 institutional subscribers (primarily libraries and educational institutions). (3) Although the primary readership of JIS is academics, some editors included practitioners as an important audience. Stone notes that he has been "gratified as editor to have several practitioners request articles from JIS," suggesting that "we are reaching a broader audience." He also suggests broadening the intended audience of JIS to include academics from other disciplines involved in AIS research.

The accounting doctoral program and current institutional affiliation of authors comprise an indicator of JIS's institutional audience. Table 1 details the 20 doctoral programs whose graduates have contributed the most articles to JIS. Weighted by the inverse of the number of authors (Zivney et al. 1995), The University of Texas leads this list with ten weighted publications. Arizona State University is next, followed by Michigan State University. Graduates of the listed schools contributed approximately 60 percent of all JIS articles. A large proportion of those publishing in the journal graduated from large state universities.

Table 2 shows the 20 schools with the largest weighted number of articles by individual faculty members at the time of publication. Michigan State University leads, with Brigham Young University a close second, and University of Southern California third. The schools identified in this listing represent almost half of all JIS articles published. The table also provides the total number of articles adjusted for the average faculty number from 1986 through 2001. These figures likewise indicate that JIS has received substantial participation from accounting faculty across a wide spectrum of large universities.

Only nine of the 31 schools appear in both Tables 1 and 2. These schools are Arizona State University, Michigan State University, The University of Tennessee, The Ohio State University, Oklahoma State University, Texas A&M University, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Louisiana State University, and University of Southern California. Thus, while there is diversity in the location of faculty training and school at publication, the data suggest that the primary author source is accounting faculty at larger state institutions.

In addition, the current and former editors of JIS have been/are located at a variety of schools: Wilkinson (retired) was at Arizona State University, McCarthy is at Michigan State University, Borthick is at Georgia State University (previously at The University of Tennessee), Wiggins is at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Murthy is at University of South Florida (both Wiggins and Murthy were previously at Texas A&M University), and Stone is at the University of Kentucky (previously at University of Illinois). Their research activities or encouragement of colleagues and students may well have influenced the school standings in these tables.


Samuels and Steinbart (2002) provide a thorough discussion of the enduring categories of JIS: the Academic, Practice, and Education sections. Table 3 provides a detailed listing of all JIS categories and the editor(s) introducing or including them.

The table shows that categories have varied significantly in terms of publication quantity. Academic Articles dominate, followed by Dissertation Abstracts/Summaries and Book Reviews. While editors have created a flexible content structure for the journal, JIS's main focus has been, and continues to be, academic research.

Samuels and Steinbart (2002) note the largest decrease in article content in JIS from the first five years to the second five years occurred in the Practice and Education sections. They surmise that alternative outlets and the perception of the categories in the promotion and tenure process may have reduced these submissions. While this conclusion is generally consistent with the editors' comments, most mention education topics as important in meeting the needs of the readership. Stone states a commitment to the inclusion of "teaching-related scholarship" in JIS.

Suggestions by the editors for format changes relate to nonprimary content areas. Wilkinson and Stone suggest a return of book reviews and Borthick the inclusion of thoughtful commentaries. Wiggins and Murthy mention dropping the "Research Note" category since it is rarely used (and possibly creating a broader category termed "Research Articles"). Several editors state that general education papers might be more appropriate in Issues in Accounting Education. Wilkinson suggests dropping instructional cases due to page-length concerns, while Stone notes that dissertation abstracts have been moved from JIS to the IS Section's website.

The editors' ideas on underrepresented topic areas included e-commerce, consulting techniques, independence issues associated with consulting and auditing services, work on computer and design science, group support systems, continuous auditing, enterprise resource planning, and knowledge management. McCarthy also suggested a need for more research on ways to build better accounting systems. Stone indicates a number of other areas that could benefit from additional research including financial accounting interactions, case study research, and opinion pieces.


An overall strength of JIS is its reputation as evidenced by journal ranking and citation studies. Doney and Eaton (2003) rank JIS 4 out of 50 journals in their study involving senior accounting faculty (Associate and Full Professors) who teach and research in the AIS area. They also allow respondents to identify the top three journals, and JIS overwhelmingly was the top-ranked journal. Daigle and Arnold (2000) indicate that JIS was ranked 21 out of 45 academic journals in accounting and management information systems (MIS) for quality by the most productive AIS researchers. Brown and Huefner (1994) survey the views of senior accounting faculty in leading U.S. Master of Business Administration programs and find JIS ranked 26 out of 44 accounting journals based on quality.

Citations analyses show widespread acceptance of JIS by researchers in accounting and other disciplines. Samuels and Steinbart (2002) provide data indicating that JIS articles frequently cite a wide range of journals and that 83 articles in 33 journals have cited JIS work. These ranking and citation studies suggest JIS is viewed by academics as a quality accounting journal.

Resources and reputation are interrelated. An editor depends on a network of relationships and the availability of resources, the adequacy of which influences the ability of the editor to enhance the reputation of the journal. Reputation helps provide resource availability and enhances the editorial position itself (Kotler 2000). It also provides benefits to authors, such as credit in the promotion and tenure process. Thus, resources and relationships lead to reputation, and reputation leads to resource availability. With respect to JIS, editorial leadership and the support of IS members have contributed to the journal, as Borthick states, "making a place for itself at the table." Continued success of the journal requires attention, by editors and those contributing to the journal, to the ongoing development of its reputation for quality publications, examination of contemporary issues, and expansion of accounting knowledge while balancing the changing needs of its stakeholders.

The editors held a variety of views on the strengths and weaknesses of JIS. The positive comments primarily relate to the talents of the people participating in the journal. Common themes regarding strengths were the community of scholars supporting the journal, the quality of the associate editors and reviewers, and the quality of submissions. Many of the editors mentioned the dedication of the IS Section members producing quality research with an AIS focus and their willingness to volunteer time.

The responses regarding weaknesses focused on topic coverage and the positioning of JIS in broader accounting research. Wilkinson feels the dominant academic focus has led to a loss of balance; JIS does not address the concerns of practice as often as it might. Stone states that weaknesses include a somewhat myopic focus in terms of topical coverage, insufficient involvement and engagement with other areas of accounting scholarship, and insufficient ties to the MIS community. McCarthy notes that other accounting subdisciplines do not understand, and therefore do not appreciate, AIS research. Finally, as discussed previously, a weakness may be a lack of quality submissions. Murthy and Wiggins (2002) note a continuing need for those submitting manuscripts to JIS to obtain feedback early in the research process to enhance quality. These comments indicate some remaining definitional issues regarding the scope and place of AIS research. Many of these have been considered over the life of the journal in a variety of papers and editorials (Stone 2002a; Murthy and Wiggins 2002, 1999; David et al. 1999; Borthick 1992; McCarthy 1991, 1990a, 1990b, 1987; Wilkinson 1986). The responses suggest that what constitutes appropriate future research will continue to expand. (4)


The most commonly mentioned attributes needed by an editor were strong organizational skills and the ability to quickly assess manuscripts and identify reviewers. Strength in these areas can compensate for lack of expert knowledge in specific topic areas. McCarthy notes that an editor must have an extensive knowledge of the general field of AIS; however, it is impossible for one person to be strong in every area. An editor must have an extensive network of colleagues in order to identify appropriate reviewers for papers. The editor must also be able to manage the review process, reconciling competing viewpoints. Stone notes that this aspect of the position requires strong interpersonal skills. A theme across editors is that interactions must be based on a common passion for research and scholarship.

The editors strongly suggest future JIS editors seek support from their schools before accepting the editorship. The job is less burdensome if the university provides secretarial assistance and release time. Another characteristic needed is a willingness to market the journal. An editor can "plant seeds" of ideas for future research through the use of editorials in the journal or commissioned manuscripts, by participating in panel discussions, and by attending AIS/MIS research workshops or doctoral consortiums. Additionally, it was suggested that the editor should market the journal to the broader accounting and MIS research communities. Wiggins and Murthy also indicate the editor should keep the position in perspective and have fun.

A final question posed was how each editor would like to be remembered. The answers are reflective of the issues each faced during the journal's development. Wilkinson indicates he would like to be remembered as a founder of JIS. He feels his involvement was a matter of being at the fight place at the right time. McCarthy responds that he would like to be remembered as an editor who tried to better define AIS research and worked to champion computer-science-related research. Borthick would like to be seen as someone who helped continue the quality of JIS and worked to disseminate it to the larger academic community. Wiggins and Murthy respond that they would like to be remembered as the first "coeditors" of the journal, as editors who kept the journal on time without compromising quality, and who made the submission process totally electronic. While Stone is still in the process of defining his term, he states as goals: broadening the definition of accounting information systems research and scholarship, being a good steward of the journal, and reaching out to a larger accounting community to encourage participation in the journal.


Over the past 17 years, JIS has developed into a premier journal of accounting information systems research. The editor interviews and analyses of data in this study provide insights related to this development. They suggest that editorials and commissioned articles can assist in providing direction, and editors must balance differing views of appropriate content. Additionally, this direction and mix evolves over time: editors must continuously respond to a journal's changing circumstances, needs, and constraints, while balancing publication quality and quantity. They also indicate that successful creation of a journal requires significant involvement by its stakeholders, and that, once created, such a journal remains heavily dependent on volunteers. The significant time commitment of an editorship limits personal research, yet provides satisfaction through service. Reviewers and assistant editors, to a lesser extent, also must be willing to give up time to contribute to the journal. An academic journal also depends on submissions, and for authors submitting papers to a journal, timeliness of reviews is a major consideration, as are journal direction and reputation. In the final analysis, a journal depends upon its reputation to afford resources, attract audiences, and merit valuation in the tenure and promotion process.

The information on editorial motivations and constraints has implications for prospective authors. Those submitting papers should ask themselves how publication of their manuscript will benefit the journal's reputation and serve its readership. Potential authors also should facilitate the (resource intensive) review process by having colleagues critique their manuscripts and/or presenting them at workshops before submission to JIS. The editors have the primary responsibility for the ongoing mechanics of the journal; however, the willingness of stakeholders to support JIS significantly affects its success in remaining a high-quality academic journal.

The many editor comments suggest an opportunity to broaden the reach of JIS. AIS permeates all areas of accounting and research that involves what information is collected, how it is collected, how it is presented and used, the factors that influence the success of various approaches and contents, and how all of these have evolved over time and under varying circumstances, could well qualify as AIS research. A fruitful future direction for JIS could involve research that crosses "specialty" lines, integrating what accounting information systems do or how they are designed with their consequences for organizational outcomes in any of the areas of accounting. This provides AIS academics with a broad area for future research endeavors and JIS with an increasing array of potential submissions. The challenge now before JIS's stakeholders is to take the journal to the next stage in its development by continuing to expand the reach of AIS research and ensuring participation by as wide a range as possible of those interested in AIS.



Editor Motivations and Challenges

1. What was (were) your reason(s) for accepting the editorship of JIS?

2. At the outset of your JIS editorship, what were two or three major challenges you faced? How did you deal with these?

3. What was the most unexpected (good or bad) job-related event (as editor) during your tenure as JIS editor?

4. What was (is) your biggest disappointment as JIS editor? Why?

5. What was (is) your most important accomplishment as JIS editor? Why?

6. What aspects of being JIS editor brought (brings) you the most satisfaction? Why?

Journal Purpose and Intended Audiences

7. What did you feel was the intended purpose of JIS at the time of your editorship?

8. Relative to your editorship, do you believe that the intended purpose of JIS has changed today? If so, in what way?

9. Who did you perceive as JIS's intended audience(s) when you began your editorship?

10. Who do you perceive as JIS's intended audience(s) today?

Topical Areas of the Journal

11. During your editorship, you made the following changes in the sections of JIS (insert specific section changes during editorship). Can you please explain your rationale for these changes?

12. Presently, the JIS sections are as follows: Academic articles, Education articles, Practice articles, Dissertation Abstracts/Summaries, Editorials, Instructional Cases, Research Notes, and Instructional Resources; if one section was to be dropped, which should it be? Why?

13. Presently, the JIS sections are as follows: Academic articles, Education articles, Practice articles, Dissertation Abstracts/Summaries, Editorials, Instructional Cases, Research Notes, and Instructional Resources; if one section was to be added, what should it be? Why?

14. What AIS topics are currently underrepresented in JIS?

Journal Strengths and Weaknesses

15. What are the major strengths of JIS?

16. What are the major weaknesses of JIS?

17. On a scale of I (worst journal in accounting and MIS) to 10 (best journal in accounting and MIS), how would you rate the overall quality of articles published in JIS? Could you please explain your rating?

18. On a scale of 1 (worst journal in accounting and MIS) to 10 (best journal in accounting and MIS), how would you rate the variety of AIS topics presented in JIS articles published today? Could you please explain your rating?

19. On a scale of 1 (worst journal in accounting and MIS) to 10 (best journal in accounting and MIS), in comparison with other AIS academic journals, how would yon rate JIS? Could you please explain your rating?

20. What journal do you consider the premier AIS academic journal today?

Editor Attributes and Reflections

21. What attributes do yon believe a JIS editor needs to be successful?

22. What suggestions or advice would you give to present and future JIS editors?

23. How do you want to be remembered as a JIS editor?
JIS Articles
University of Degree
1986-2001 (a)

                                   Number of  Authors

    University                  Total   1    2    3   4

 1  The University              10.00   4   10    3   0
      of Texas
 2  Arizona State                7.50   4    5    3   0
 3  Michigan State               7.08   3    6    1   3
 4  Indiana University           6.83   4    5    1   0
 5  The University               5.83   2    3    7   0
      of Tennessee
 6  University of                5.75   2    3    6   1
 7  The Ohio State               5.67   2    3    5   2
 8  Case Western                 5.00   4    2    0   0
     Reserve University
    The University of Utah       5.00   3    4    0   0
10  Oklahoma State               4.67   0    8    2   0
    Texas A&M University         4.67   2    2    5   0
12  University of North          4.00   1    4    3   0
13  The University of Texas      3.00   2    0    3   0
      at Arlington
    Virginia Polytechnic         3.00   1    4    0   0
      Institute & State
15  University of                2.58   1    2    1   1
16  University of Kentucky       2.50   1    3    0   0
17  Louisiana State              2.33   2    0    1   0
    University of                2.33   1    2    1   0
      Los Angeles
19  University of Southern       2.17   1    1    2   0
    University of Washington     2.17   0    3    2   0
20  Other Schools               31.25   9   30   18   5

(a)  In JIS, there were 154 Articles in the following categories:
Academic, Education, Practice, Research Note, and Supplement from
1986 through 2001. Discussant's Comments are not included. Each
article is weighted by the inverse of the number of authors.
Total Accounting author entries for this table were 226 (291 Total
author entries less 50 non-Accounting, and 15 missing data author
entries). Only schools >2.00 Total weighted publications are displayed.

JIS Articles
School at Publication
1986-2001 (a)

                                   Number of Authors

     University              Total   1    2    3    4

 1   Michigan State           6.25   4    4    0    1
 2   Brigham Young            5.75   0    7    6    1
 3   University of Southern   5.17   4    1    2    0
 4   Georgia State            5.00   3    2    3    0
     Texas A&M                5.00   0    8    3    0
 6   University of South      4.33   2    0    7    0
 7   Arizona State            4.25   2    2    3    1
 8   University of Illinois   4.00   3    2    0    0
 9   Oklahoma State           3.67   1    3    2    2
10   Auburn University        3.33   1    4    1    0
     The Ohio State           3.33   1    0    4    4
12   Creighton University     3.00   3    0    0    0
     Pennsylvania State       3.00   3    0    0    0
     The University of        3.00   1    2    3    0
15   Southern Illinois        2.67   1    2    2    0
     University of South      2.67   0    4    2    0
17   Texas Tech University    2.50   2    0    0    2
     Virginia Polytechnic     2.50   0    5    0    0
       Institute & State
19   Louisiana State          2.33   2    0    1    0
     The University of        2.33   1    2    1    0
>20  Other Schools           56.92  17   60   29   1

                               Size-      Size-
    University                 Adjusted   Rank

  1   Michigan State             0.28        3
  2   Brigham Young              0.20        8
  3   University of Southern     0.21        6
  4   Georgia State              0.19        9
      Texas A&M                  0.18       11
  6   University of South        0.19        9
  7   Arizona State              0.15       15
  8   University of Illinois     0.14       17
  9   Oklahoma State             0.21        6
 10   Auburn University          0.24        4
      The Ohio State             0.14       17
 12   Creighton University       0.35        1
      Pennsylvania State         0.16       13
      The University of          0.30        2
 15   Southern Illinois          0.24        4
      University of South        0.16       13
 17   Texas Tech University      0.18       11
      Virginia Polytechnic       0.11       20
        Institute & State
 19   Louisiana State            0.14       17
      The University of          0.15       15
>20   Other Schools

(a) In JIS, there were 154 articles in the following categories:
Academic, Education, Practice, Research Note, and Supplement from
1986 through 2001. Discussant's Comments are not included. Each
article is weighted by the inverse of the number of authors.
Total Accounting author entries for this table were 241 (291 Total
author entries less 50 non-Accounting author entries). Only schools
>2.00 Total weighted publications are displayed. For the
size-adjusted results, Total weighted publications are
deflated by average Accounting faculty by school
from 1986-2001.

JIS Editors
1986-2001 (a)

                          Date     1986-1989  1989-1992  1992-1998
Category                Initiated  Wilkinson  McCarthy   Borthick

Academic Articles       Fall 1986     X           X          X
Education Articles      Fall 1986     X           X          X
Practice Articles       Fall 1986     X           X          X
Book Reviews            Fall 1986     X           X          X
Dissertation            Fall 1986     X                      X
Committee Reports       Fall 1986     X
Clearing house of       Fall 1986     X
 Software and Cases
Educational Software    Fall 1987     X
Editorials              Fall 1990                 X           X
Educational Materials   Fall 1991                 X
Instructional Cases     Fall 1993                             X
Discussant's            Spring 1994                           X
Research Notes          Spring 1998                           X
Instructional           Spring 2000
Supplement              2000


                        Wiggins and
Category                   Murthy     Quantity

Academic Articles           X             94
Education Articles          X             27
Practice Articles           X             24
Book Reviews                              37
Dissertation                X             89
Committee Reports                          3
Clearing house of                          1
 Software and Cases
Educational Software                       4
Editorials                   X             6
Educational Materials                      1
Instructional Cases          X             2
Discussant's                              11
Research Notes               X             2
Instructional                X             1
Supplement                   X            23

(a) Sections are listed by date of introduction and then
longevity. Quantity contains all items through the Fall 2001
JIS edition including commissioned works. See Samuels and
Steinbart (2002) for detailed quantity data on the following
categories: Academic, Education, and Practice.

JIS Articles
by Faculty Rank
1986-2001 (a)

            1986  1987   1988  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994

Assistant   4.33  4.00  10.33  4.67  6.33  6.17  3.00  2.50  2.75
Associate   2.67  2.33   4.50  3.67  2.50  2.50  2.50  1.50  0.83
Full        3.00  7.08   2.17  3.83  3.17  2.00  1.50  1.67  1.17

            1995  1996   1997  1998  1999  2000  2001
Associate   2.33  1.50   2.00  3.83  1.83  2.92  2.83
Full        1.83  1.00   2.50  1.50  0.33  5.75  0.33
            1.33  0.83   0.50  0.33  2.92  2.67  2.17

(a)  In JIS, there were 154 Articles in the following categories:
Academic, Education, Practice, Research Note, and Supplement from
1986 through 2001. Each article is weighted by the inverse of the
number of authors. Total faculty author entries for this table were
247 (291 Total author entries less 17 nonfaculty, 8 doctoral student,
and 19 missing data author entries). For reference, International
Journal of Accounting Information Systems (formerly Advances in
Accounting Information System) began publication in 1992 as an
additional publication outlet for AIS research.

JIS Articles
Submission/Acceptance Rates
1991-2001 (a)

              1991   1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998

Submissions     38     32    61    52    33    10    11    30
Acceptances      7      6     9    11     6     1     2     9
Percent        18%    19%   15%   21%   18%   10%   18%   30%

              1999   2000  2001

Submissions     29     21    64
Acceptances      7      4    10
Percent        24%    19%   16%

(a) Data supplied by A. Faye Borthick and Journal of Information
Systems 16 (Spring 2002) and include 1994, 1995, and 1996 AIS
Research Symposia, and 2002 Midyear IS Meeting. the authors were
not able to obtain submission/acceptance information for 1986 to
1991. Years represent the beginning of fiscal years. For reference,
the International Journal of Accounting Information Systems
(formerly Advances in Accounting Information Systems) began
publication in 1992 as an additional publication outlet for AIS

The authors thank Joseph W. Wilkinson, William E. McCarthy, A. Faye Borthick, Casper E. Wiggins, Jr., Uday S. Murthy, and Dan N. Stone for their assistance and the anonymous reviewers and associate editor for their helpful comments on this manuscript.

(1) JIS editors are referenced by their last names and all quotations not cited are from the 2002 interviews noted in the references.

(2) No submission or acceptance data were available before 1991.

(3) The 882 individual subscribers represent approximately 10 percent of the AAA membership, and 79 percent of these subscribers reside in the United States.

(4) The responses for Q17-20 were very limited. Several editors declined to answer the ranking questions. Those who did respond tended to provide only favorable evaluations of JIS.


Arnold, V. 1993. Accounting information systems research: Attitudes and perceptions of publication outlets. Advances in Accounting Information Systems 2: 133-160.

Borthick, A. F. 1992. Editorial; Helping users get the information they want, when they want it, in the form they want it: Integrating the choice and use of information. Journal of Information Systems 6 (Fall): v-ix.

--. 2002. Telephone interview, May 21. Conducted and transcribed by Paul D. Hutchison.

Brown, L. D., and R. J. Huefner. 1994. The familiarity with and perceived quality of accounting journals: Views of senior accounting faculty in leading U.S. MBA programs. Contemporary Accounting Research 11 (Summer): 223-250.

Carnaghan, C., J. Flower-Gyepesi, and M. Gibbins. 1994. A profile of Contemporary Accounting Research: Fall 1984--Spring 1994. Contemporary Accounting Research 11 (Summer): 251-270.

Daigle, R. J., and V. Arnold. 2000. An analysis of the research productivity of AIS faculty. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 1: 106-122.

David, J. S., C. L. Dunn, W. E. McCarthy, and R. S. Poston. 1999. The research pyramid: A framework for accounting information systems research. Journal of Information Systems 13 (Spring): 7-30.

Doney, L. D., and T. V. Eaton. 2003. Forums for accounting information systems scholars. Review of Business Information Systems 7 (3) (Summer): 13-22.

Dyckman, T. R., and S. A. Zeff. 1984. Two decades of the Journal of Accounting Research. Journal of Accounting Research 22 (1) (Spring): 225-297.

Hasselback, J. R. 1985-2000. Accounting Faculty Directory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

--, and A. Reinstein. 1995. A proposal for measuring scholarly productivity of accounting faculty. Issues in Accounting Education l0 (Fall): 269-306.

Heck, J. L., and W. G. Bremser. 1986. Six decades of The Accounting Review: A summary of author and institutional contributors. The Accounting Review 61 (October): 735-743.

Hutchison, P. D., and C. G. White. 2003. The Journal of the American Taxation Association 1979-2000: Content, participation, and citation analyses. The Journal of the American Taxation Association 25 (Spring): 100-121.

Kotler, P. 2000. Marketing Management: The Millennium Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

McCarthy, W. E. 1987. Accounting information systems: Research directions and perspective. Journal of Information Systems 2 (Fall): 29-32.

--. 1990a. Editorial; Information technology research in accounting. Journal of Information Systems 4 (Fall).

--. 1990b. The Journal of Information Systems editorial guidelines--1990. Journal of Information Systems 4 (Spring).

--. 1991. Editorial; Accounting systems scholarship: Categories of endeavor and processes of evaluation. Journal of Information Systems 5 (Fall).

--. 2002. Telephone interview, June 28. Conducted and transcribed by Paul D. Hutchison.

Meyer, M., and J. T. Rigsby. 2001. A descriptive analysis of the content and contributors of Behavioral Research in Accounting 1989-1998. Behavioral Research in Accounting 13: 253-278.

Murthy, U. S., and C. E. Wiggins, Jr. 1999. Editorial; A perspective on accounting information systems research. Journal of Information Systems 13 (Spring): 3-6.

--, and --. 2002. Why manuscripts are rejected: An analysis of JIS rejections. Journal of Information Systems 16 (Spring): 41-48.

Samuels, J. A., and P. J. Steinbart. 2002. The Journal of Information Systems: A review of the first 15 years. Journal of Information Systems 16 (2): 97-116.

Scapens, R. W., and M. Bromwich. 2001. Management Accounting Research: The first decade. Management Accounting Research 12 (June): 245-254.

Stone, D. N. 2002a. Editorial; Researching the revolution: Prospects and possibilities for the Journal of Information Systems. Journal of Information Systems 16 (1): 1-6.--. 2002b. Telephone interview, July 17. Conducted and transcribed by Paul D. Hutchison.

Watts, R. L. 1998. Commemorating the 25th volume of the Journal of Accounting and Economics. Journal of Accounting and Economics 25 (June): 217-233.

Wiggins, Jr., C. E., and U. S. Murthy. 2002. Responses to questionnaire received on June 29.

Wilkinson, J. W. 1986. Instructions to authors. Journal of Information Systems l (Fall).

--. 2002. Telephone interview, July 5. Conducted and transcribed by Paul D. Hutchison.

Zivney, T. L., W. J. Bertin, and T. A. Gavin. 1995. A comprehensive examination of accounting faculty publishing. Issues in Accounting Education 10 (Spring): 1-25.

Paul D. Hutchison

Tanya M. Lee

University of North Texas

Craig G. White

University of New Mexico
COPYRIGHT 2004 American Accounting Association
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2004 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Hutchison, Paul D.; Lee, Tanya M.; White, Craig G.
Publication:Journal of Information Systems
Date:Mar 22, 2004
Previous Article:Authors' reply to commentary on accounting information systems research opportunities using personality type theory and the Myers-Briggs Type...
Next Article:The evaluation of risky information technology investment decisions.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters