One of the main reasons article submissions get desk-rejected by journals is for lack of fit. But what does that actually mean? And how can we figure this out before we submit our work? Well there are several tests you can do to evaluate the fitness of your work to an information systems journal: you can evaluate whether you are writing about a discourse that already takes place in information systems journals. You can check whether your arguments have a hook for information systems academics. You can determine whether you have a digital artefact at the core of your paper because while a digital artefact at the core is not required, having such a focus can be good indicator for fitness. Finally, you can establish whether your research is at least to some extent sociotechnical in orientation.

Look at what Santa dropped when he came down the chimney last night. A bunch of valuable ThisISResearch Best paper Awards! As we do at the end of every year, we look back at the finest information systems scholarship our field has produced this year, and we pick some of our favorite papers that we want to give an award too. Like in previous years, we recognize three different kinds of best papers – a paper that is innovative in its use of research methods, a paper that is a fine example of elegant scholarship, and a paper that is trailblazing in the sense that it starts new conversations in our field. References Pujol Priego, L., & Wareham, J. (2023). From Bits to Atoms: White Rabbit at CERN. MIS Quarterly, 47(2), 639-668. Recker, J., Zeiss, R., & Mueller, M. (2024). iRepair or I Repair? A Dialectical Process Analysis of Control Enactment on the iPhone Repair Aftermarket. MIS Quarterly, 48(1), 321-346. Seidel, S., Frick, C. J., & vom Brocke, J. (2025). Regulating Emerging Technologies: Prospective Sensemaking through Abstraction and Elaboration. MIS Quarterly, 49, . Abbasi, A., Somanchi, S., & Kelley, K. (2025). The Critical Challenge of using Large-scale Digital Experiment Platforms for Scientific Discovery. MIS Quarterly, 49, . Lindberg, A., Schecter, A., Berente, N., Hennel, P., & Lyytinen, K. (2024). The Entrainment of Task Allocation and Release Cycles in Open Source Software Development. MIS Quarterly, 48(1), 67-94. Kitchens, B., Claggett, J. L., & Abbasi, A. (2024). Timely, Granular, and Actionable: Designing a Social Listening Platform for Public Health 3.0. MIS Quarterly, 48(3), 899-930. Chen, Z., & Chan, J. (2024). Large Language Model in Creative Work: The Role of Collaboration Modality and User Expertise. Management Science, 70(12), 9101-9117. Matherly, T., & Greenwood, B. N. (2024). No News is Bad News: The Internet, Corruption, and the Decline of the Fourth Estate. MIS Quarterly, 48(2), 699-714. Morse, L., Teodorescu, M., Awwad, Y., & Kane, G. C. (2022). Do the Ends Justify the Means? Variation in the Distributive and Procedural Fairness of Machine Learning Algorithms. Journal of Business Ethics, 181(4), 1083-1095. Hansen, S., Berente, N., & Lyytinen, K. (2009). Wikipedia, Critical Social Theory, and the Possibility of Rational Discourse. The Information Society, 25(1), 38-59. Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Heinemann.

What do academics have to offer that practitioners do not already have? They have the data academics want. They can analyse it by themselves, sometimes better than academics. They are also not reading our articles. So why would academics bother engaging with them? Why should we even bridge that perceived or existing gap between theory and practice? Because academics need to dip their toes into practice, and they need to mingle with industry to stay relevant. So says Jonny Holmström, director and co-founder of the Swedish Center for Digital Innovation. He has been at the forefront of doing academic research that blends theory and practice, rigor and relevance, and he knows a thing or two about how to do so successfully. His secret? Maximize the gap between academics and practitioners, don’t close it. References Holmström, J., Magnusson, J., & Mähring, M. (2021). Orchestrating Digital Innovation: The Case of the Swedish Center for Digital Innovation. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 48(31), 248-264. Churchman, C. W. (1972). The Design of Inquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and Organization. Basic Books. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford University Press. Holmström, J. (2022). From AI to Digital Transformation: The AI Readiness Framework. Business Horizons, 65(3), 329-339. Recker, J., Bockelmann, T., & Barthel, F. (2024). Growing Online-to-Offline Platform Businesses: How Vytal Became the World-Leading Provider of Smart Reusable Food Packaging. Information Systems Journal, 34(1), 179-200. Abbasi, A., Somanchi, S., & Kelley, K. (2025). The Critical Challenge of using Large-scale Digital Experiment Platforms for Scientific Discovery. MIS Quarterly, 49, . Sandberg, J., Holmström, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2020). Digitization and Phase Transitions in Platform Organizing Logics: Evidence from the Process Automation Industry. MIS Quarterly, 44(1), 129-153. Werder, K., Seidel, S., Recker, J., Berente, N., Kundert-Gibbs, J., Abboud, N., & Benzeghadi, Y. (2020). Data-Driven, Data-Informed, Data-Augmented: How Ubisoft’s Ghost Recon Wildlands Live Unit Uses Data for Continuous Product Innovation. California Management Review, 62(3), 86-102. Sting, F. J., Tarakci, M., & Recker, J. (2024). Performance Implications of Digital Disruption in Strategic Competition. MIS Quarterly, 48(3), 1263-1278. Tarakci, M., Sting, F. J., Recker, J., & Kane, G. C. (2024). Three Questions to Ask About Your Digital Strategy. MIT Sloan Management Review, July, . Davenport, T. H. (1993). Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology. Harvard Business School Press. Davenport, T. H. (1998). Putting the Enterprise into the Enterprise System. Harvard Business Review, 76(4), 121-131. Schecter, A., Wowak, K. D., Berente, N., Ye, H., & Mukherjee, U. (2021). A Behavioral Perspective on Service Center Routing: The Role of Inertia. Journal of Operations Management, 67(8), 964-988. Sundberg, L., & Holmström, J. (2024). Innovating by Prompting: How to Facilitate Innovation in the Age of Generative AI. Business Horizons, 67(5), 561-570. Kronblad, C., Essén, A., & Mähring, M. (2024). When Justice is Blind to Algorithms: Multilayered Blackboxing of Algorithmic Decision Making in the Public Sector. MIS Quarterly, 48(4), 1637-1662.

You set up an assumption, you have a theory, you analyze your data, and you show that the assumption does not hold. Doing good qualitative research is that simple. Except that it’s not, of course. On the ground, in the research and writing process, these basic rules can be quite tricky to implement. So we discuss some heuristics researchers can use to limit their conversants, settle on suitable theoretical lenses to examine their data, and collecting more data than what they thought was necessary.   References Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation Of Cultures. Basic Books. Goodall, J. (1986). The Chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of Behavior. Harvard University Press. Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Basic Books. Durkheim, E. (1895). The Rules of Sociological Method. Free Press. Giddens, A. (1976). New Rules of Sociological Method. Hutchinson. Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an Occasion for Structuring: Evidence from Observations of CT Scanners and the Social Order of Radiology Departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1), 78-108. Kellogg, K. C. (2022). Local Adaptation Without Work Intensification: Experimentalist Governance of Digital Technology for Mutually Beneficial Role Reconfiguration in Organizations. Organization Science, 33(2), 571-599. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1445 Mertens, W., Recker, J., Kummer, T.-F., Kohlborn, T., & Viaene, S. (2016). Constructive Deviance as a Driver for Performance in Retail. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 30, 193-203. Markus, M. L. (1983). Power, Politics, and MIS Implementation. Communications of the ACM, 26(6), 430-444. Berente, N., Lyytinen, K., Yoo, Y., & King, J. L. (2016). Routines as Shock Absorbers During Organizational Transformation: Integration, Control, and NASA’s Enterprise Information System. Organization Science, 27(3), 551-572. Alashoor, T., Keil, M., Smith, H. J., & McConnell, A. R. (2023). Too Tired and in Too Good of a Mood to Worry about Privacy: Explaining the Privacy Paradox through the Lens of Effort Level in Information Processing. Information Systems Research, 34(4), 1415-1436. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). Sage. Berente, N., Recker, J., & Leonardi, P. (2023). . This IS Research podcast, 13 September 2023. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15-31. Lebovitz, S., Levina, N., & Lifshitz-Assaf, H. (2021). Is AI Ground Truth Really “True”? The Dangers of Training and Evaluating AI Tools Based on Experts’ Know-What. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1501-1525. Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. University of Chicago Press. Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691-711. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed.). Sage. Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, P. J. (2014). An Embedded Model of Cultural Adaptation in Global Teams. Organization Science, 25(4), 1056-1081.

Did you know there is someone who published a MIS Quarterly paper in its inaugural issue in 1977 and has another one forthcoming in 2024? Hard to fathom but has published at least one paper in our top journal in every decade of its existence. Izak has been doing IS scholarship for almost fifty years, which makes him the perfect researcher to talk to about how the field has changed, where it is going, whether we are progressing well, and whether we maintain the optimal balance between social and technical, internal and external views of IS phenomena in our research. References Benbasat, I., & Schroeder, R. G. (1977). An Experimental Investigation of Some MIS Design Variables. MIS Quarterly, 1(1), 37-49. Jussupow, E., Benbasat, I., & Heinzl, A. (2024). An Integrative Perspective on Algorithm Aversion and Appreciation in Decision-Making. MIS Quarterly, . Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. W. (2003). The Identity Crisis Within The IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating The Discipline's Core Properties. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 183-194. Gregor, S., & Benbasat, I. (1999). Explanations from Intelligent Systems: Theoretical Foundations and Implications for Practice. MIS Quarterly, 23(4), 497-530. Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450. Lyytinen, K., & King, J. L. (2004). Nothing At The Center? Academic Legitimacy in the Information Systems Field. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(6), 220-246. Sarker, S., Chatterjee, S., Xiao, X., & Elbanna, A. R. (2019). The Sociotechnical Axis of Cohesion for the IS Discipline: Its Historical Legacy and its Continued Relevance. MIS Quarterly, 43(3), 695-719. Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (1995). On the Deep Structure of Information Systems. Information Systems Journal, 5(3), 203-223. Banville, C., & Landry, M. (1989). Can the Field of MIS be Disciplined? Communications of the ACM, 32(1), 48-60. Benbasat, I., & Wang, W. (2005). Trust In and Adoption of Online Recommendation Agents. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 6(3), 72-101. Benbasat, I., & Barki, H. (2007). Quo Vadis TAM? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 211-218. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press. Kim, D., & Benbasat, I. (2006). The Effects of Trust-Assuring Arguments on Consumer Trust in Internet Stores: Application of Toulmin's Model of Argumentation. Information Systems Research, 17(3), 286-300. Qiu, L., & Benbasat, I. (2009). Evaluating Anthropomorphic Product Recommendation Agents: A Social Relationship Perspective to Designing Information Systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(4), 145-182. Applegate, L., & King, J. L. (1999). Rigor and Relevance: Careers on the Line. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 17-18. Mason, R. O., Mason, F. M., & Culnan, M. J. (1995). Ethics of Information Management. Sage. Mason, R. O. (2022). On the Evolution to PAPA. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 51(2), 7-22. Keen, P. G. W., & Scott Morton, M. S. (1978). Decision Support Systems: An Organizational Perspective. Addison-Wesley. Davis, G. B. (1974). Management Information Systems: Conceptual Foundations, Structure and Development. McGraw-Hill. Alaimo, C., & Kallinikos, J. (2024). Data Rules: Reinventing the Market Economy. MIT Press. Burton-Jones, A., Butler, B. S., Scott, S. V., & Xu, S. X. (2021). Next-Generation Information Systems Theorizing: A Call to Action. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 301-314. Leidner, D. E., & Tona, O. (2021). The CARE Theory of Dignity Amid Personal Data Digitalization. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 343-370. Parker, G., Van Alstyne, M., & Jiang, X. (2017). Platform Ecosystems: How Developers Invert the Firm. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 255-266. Pujol Priego, L., & Wareham, J. (2023). From Bits to Atoms: White Rabbit at CERN. MIS Quarterly, 47(2), 639-668. Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724-735. Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192-222.

We continue our discussion around theorizing about digital phenomena and publishing conceptual papers. Today, we are joined by , who has published several theoretical articles on digital technology in Academy of Management Review. He is also an AMR editor for a special issue on and he heads the Theory section as senior editor in the Journal of the Association for Information Systems. With Robert, we talk about the AMR publishing process, how it is different from mainstream IS journals and what we need to look out for when we generate theory about new digital phenomena. References Gregory, R. W., Henfridsson, O., Kaganer, E., & Kyriakou, H. (2021). The Role of Artificial Intelligence and Data Network Effects for Creating User Value. Academy of Management Review, 46(3), 534-551. Sieber, S., & Gregory, R. W. (2018). Facebook’s Data Debacle in 2018. How to Move on? IESE Teaching Case, Number SI-200-E. Gregory, R. W., Henfridsson, O., Kaganer, E., & Kyriakou, H. (2021). Data Network Effects: Key Conditions, Shared Data, and the Data Value Duality. Academy of Management Review, 47(1), 189-192. Gregory, R. W., & Henfridsson, O. (2021). Bridging Art and Science: Phenomenon-Driven Theorizing. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 22(6), 1509-1523. Afuah, A., & Tucci, C. L. (2012). Crowdsourcing as a Solution to Distant Search. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 355-375. Fisher, G., Mayer, K. J., & Morris, S. (2021). From the Editors—Phenomenon-Based Theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 631-639. Raisch, S., & Fomina, K. (2024). Combining Human and Artificial Intelligence: Hybrid Problem-Solving in Organizations. Academy of Management Review, . Baiyere, A., Berente, N., & Avital, M. (2023). On Digital Theorizing, Clickbait Research, and the Cumulative Tradition. Journal of Information Technology, 38(1), 67-73. Grover, V., & Lyytinen, K. (2023). The Pursuit of Innovative Theory in the Digital Age. Journal of Information Technology, 38(1), 45-59. Gregory, R. W., Beck, R., Henfridsson, O., & Yaraghi, N. (2024). Cooperation Among Strangers: Algorithmic Enforcement of Reciprocal Exchange with Blockchain-Based Smart Contracts. Academy of Management Review, . Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496-515. Rivard, S. (2021). Theory Building is Neither an Art Nor a Science. It is a Craft. Journal of Information Technology, 36(3), 316-328. Leidner, D. E., & Gregory, R. W. (2024). About Theory and Theorizing. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 25(3), 501-521.

Editorials are spaces in journals where the key stewards of the field leave advice for others about what type of research the journals they lead are looking to publish. We discuss some of our favorite editorials and dissect the advice to dish out for finding important research problems, theorizing effectively, and writing persuasively. References Rai, A. (2016). Celebrating 40 Years of MIS Quarterly: MISQ’s History and Future Through the Lenses of its Editors-in-Chief. MIS Quarterly, 40(4), iii-xvi. Lee, A. S. (2001). Editor's Comments: Research in Information Systems: What We Haven't Learned. MIS Quarterly, 25(4), v-xv. Saunders, C. (2005). Editor's Comments: Looking for Diamond Cutters. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), iii-viii. Rai, A. (2017). Editor's Comments: Avoiding Type III Errors: Formulating IS Research Problems that Matter. MIS Quarterly, 41(2), iii-vii. Weber, R. (2003). Editor's Comments: The Problem of the Problem. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), iii-ix. Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450. Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015). Understanding Algorithm Aversion: Forecasters Erroneously Avoid Algorithms After Seeing them Err. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 114-126. Jussupow, E., Benbasat, I., & Heinzl, A. (2024). An Integrative Perspective on Algorithm Aversion and Appreciation in Decision-Making. MIS Quarterly, . Li, J., Li, M., Wang, X., & Thatcher, J. B. (2021). Strategic Directions for AI: The Role of CIOs and Boards of Directors. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1603-1643. Sparrowe, R. T., & Mayer, K. J. (2011). Publishing in AMJ—Part 4: Grounding Hypotheses. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1098-1102. Straub, D. W. (2009). Editor's Comments: Why Top Journals Accept Your Paper. MIS Quarterly, 33(3), iii-x.

Conceptual papers that offer new theories are hard to write and even harder to publish. You do not have empirical data to back up your arguments, which makes the papers easy to reject in the review cycle. We are also typically not well trained in theorizing, and there isn’t even a clear process to theorizing we could learn or follow. Does that mean that we shouldn’t even try to write theory papers? We ponder these questions, figure out what is so hard in writing conceptual papers – and share a few tricks that might help if you still wanted to write such a paper.  References Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Company. Watson, R. T., Boudreau, M.-C., & Chen, A. J. (2010). Information Systems and Environmentally Sustainable Development:  Energy Informatics and New Directions for the IS Community. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 23-38. Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. (2003). Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221-243. Tsang, E. W. K., & Williams, J. N. (2012). Generalization and Induction: Misconceptions, Clarifications, and a Classification of Induction. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 729-748. Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724-735. Yoo, Y. (2010). Computing in Everyday Life: A Call for Research on Experiential Computing. MIS Quarterly, 34(2), 213-231. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of Perception Routledge. Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000). Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity. MIT Press. Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516-531. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105. Sætre, A. S., & van de Ven, A. H. (2021). Generating Theory by Abduction. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 684-701. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond Dualism: Stability and Change As a Duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 202-225. Recker, J., & Green, P. (2019). How do Individuals Interpret Multiple Conceptual Models? A Theory of Combined Ontological Completeness and Overlap. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(8), 1210-1241. Jabbari, M., Recker, J., Green, P., & Werder, K. (2022). How Do Individuals Understand Multiple Conceptual Modeling Scripts? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 23(4), 1037-1070. Cornelissen, J. P. (2017). Editor’s Comments: Developing Propositions, a Process Model, or a Typology? Addressing the Challenges of Writing Theory Without a Boilerplate. Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 1-9. Recker, J., Lukyanenko, R., Jabbari, M., Samuel, B. M., & Castellanos, A. (2021). From Representation to Mediation: A New Agenda for Conceptual Modeling Research in a Digital World. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 269-300. Haerem, T., Pentland, B. T., & Miller, K. (2015). Task Complexity: Extending a Core Concept. Academy of Management Review, 40(3), 446-460. Kallinikos, J., Aaltonen, A., & Marton, A. (2013). The Ambivalent Ontology of Digital Artifacts. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 357-370. Ho, S. Y., Recker, J., Tan, C.-W., Vance, A., & Zhang, H. (2023). MISQ Special Issue on Registered Reports. MIS Quarterly, . Simon, H. A. (1990). Bounded Rationality. In J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, & P. Newman (Eds.), Utility and Probability (pp. 15-18). Palgrave Macmillan. James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. Henry Holt and Company. Watson, H. J. (2009). Tutorial: Business Intelligence - Past, Present, and Future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 25(39), 487-510.  Baird, A., & Maruping, L. M. (2021). The Next Generation of Research on IS Use: A Theoretical Framework of Delegation to and from Agentic IS Artifacts. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 315-341.

Did you know that when you spend time on an online platform, you could be experiencing between six to eight different experimental treatments that stem from several hundred A/B tests that run concurrently? That’s how common digital experimentation is today. And while this may be acceptable in industry, large-scale digital experimentation poses some substantial challenges for researchers wanting to evaluate theories and disconfirm hypotheses through randomized controlled trials done on digital platforms. Thankfully, the brilliant has a new paper forthcoming that illuminates the orthogonal testing plane problem and offers some guidelines for sidestepping the issue. So if experiments are your thing, you really need to listen to what is really going on out there. References Abbasi, A., Somanchi, S., & Kelley, K. (2024). The Critical Challenge of using Large-scale Digital Experiment Platforms for Scientific Discovery. MIS Quarterly, . Miranda, S. M., Berente, N., Seidel, S., Safadi, H., & Burton-Jones, A. (2022). Computationally Intensive Theory Construction: A Primer for Authors and Reviewers. MIS Quarterly, 46(2), i-xvi. Karahanna, E., Benbasat, I., Bapna, R., & Rai, A. (2018). Editor's Comments: Opportunities and Challenges for Different Types of Online Experiments. MIS Quarterly, 42(4), iii-x. Kohavi, R., & Thomke, S. (2017). The Surprising Power of Online Experiments. Harvard Business Review, 95(5), 74-82. Fisher, R. A. (1935). The Design of Experiments. Oliver and Boyd. Pienta, D., Vishwamitra, N., Somanchi, S., Berente, N., & Thatcher, J. B. (2024). Do Crowds Validate False Data? Systematic Distortion and Affective Polarization. MIS Quarterly, . Bapna, R., Goes, P. B., Gupta, A., & Jin, Y. (2004). User Heterogeneity and Its Impact on Electronic Auction Market Design: An Empirical Exploration. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 21-43. Somanchi, S., Abbasi, A., Kelley, K., Dobolyi, D., & Yuan, T. T. (2023). Examining User Heterogeneity in Digital Experiments. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 41(4), 1-34. Mertens, W., & Recker, J. (2020). New Guidelines for Null Hypothesis Significance Testing in Hypothetico-Deductive IS Research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(4), 1072-1102. GRADE Working Group. (2004). Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations. British Medical Journal, 328(7454), 1490-1494. Abbasi, A., Parsons, J., Pant, G., Liu Sheng, O. R., & Sarker, S. (2024). Pathways for Design Research on Artificial Intelligence. Information Systems Research, 35(2), 441-459. Abbasi, A., Chiang, R. H. L., & Xu, J. (2023). Data Science for Social Good. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 24(6), 1439-1458. Babar, Y., Mahdavi Adeli, A., & Burtch, G. (2023). The Effects of Online Social Identity Signals on Retailer Demand. Management Science, 69(12), 7335-7346. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. W. (2003). The Identity Crisis Within The IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating The Discipline's Core Properties. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 183-194. Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and Presenting Design Science Research for Maximum Impact. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 337-355. Rai, A. (2017). Editor's Comments: Avoiding Type III Errors: Formulating IS Research Problems that Matter. MIS Quarterly, 41(2), iii-vii. Burton-Jones, A. (2023). Editor's Comments: Producing Significant Research. MIS Quarterly, 47(1), i-xv.  Abbasi, A., Dillon, R., Rao, H. R., & Liu Sheng, O. R. (2024). Preparedness and Response in the Century of Disasters: Overview of Information Systems Research Frontiers. Information Systems Research, 35(2), 460-468.

We are back with the usual dose of fortnightly folksy academic wisdom sprinkled in with some serious and substantive conversations. We kick this new season off by discussing observations we made at this year’s Academy of Management conference in Chicago. We talk about how to get the most out of doctoral and junior faculty consortia, how to pick which session to go to, how papers get reviewed at conferences, which papers tend to get selected for presentation – and how to use your session as a platform to pitch your work and yourself and finish with a crescendo and a mic drop. References Kallinikos, J., Yoo, Y., Baldwin, C., Van Alstyne, M., Tucci, C. L., & Saar-Tsechansky, M. (2024). Perspectives on Digital Innovation. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, . Baskerville, R., Kaul, M., & Storey, V. C. (2017). Establishing Reliability in Design Science Research 38th International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul, Korea, . Aaltonen, A., Stelmaszak, M. (2024). Innovating in Data-based Reality: New Perspectives on Data as a Research Object. Academy of Management Professional Development Workshop, August 9, 2024, Chicago, Illinois. Meurer, M. M., Chalmers, D., Recker, J. (2024). Digital Technologies as Catalysts for Entrepreneurial Activities. Academy of Management Professional Development Workshop, August 9, 2024, Chicago, Illinois. Davidsson, P., Recker, J., & von Briel, F. (2020). External Enablement of New Venture Creation: A Framework. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(3), 311-332.