[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
With about 100 journals on the ISWorld list, it does make sense
to try to introduce some form of categorization to help authors
focus their search for appropriate outlets. I also agree that it
is probably best to let the journals categorize themselves - that
way the categories should fit the editorial policy (at least the
editor's ideal, which may be somewhat different from what actually
gets published). In addition, it might be useful both to authors and
editors if there were some mechanism by which people in the field
could express their perceptions of journals' positionings.
In looking over MISQ's classification scheme, I don't think it quite
fits; MISQ is a research journal and the classification scheme is
oriented to fitting keywords to IS research - that might serve as a
basis for journal self-categorization at the lowest level, but I think
a few higher level categories are necessary. Some examples might be
Within those categories, it might be useful to distinguish between
journals that are focussed on a particular field versus those that
are eclectic. The focussed journals could then specify their particular
fields of interest, including those in the MISQ list. But I think that
it would still be necessary to expand the MISQ list; I don't think that
list is very helpful for categorizing journals specializing, say, in
global issues, e-whatever, or DSS.
As a first shot, I would classify JAIS as currently research, eclectic (that
allows me not to delve any deeper and indeed reflects my editorial approach).
It should be noted too that a journal's policy may well change when editor's
change so the categories might need to be updated.
I think that if you can come up with an inclusive categorization, it might
be a great help to authors.
Editor, Journal of AIS (http://jais.aisnet.org)
Professor and Chair of New Economy Information Systems
Faculty of Management
phone: +972-3-6406343 fax: +972-3-6407741