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 .

Our audiences may be full of jerks and we may fail all the time – but we still love being academics. Why is that? We feel it is time to talk about some of the good things we associate with this role in our society and why being an academic and spending your life in this profession might just be a truly wonderful thing after all. As usual, the references to all readings we mention are listed on .

Sometimes, we simply fail. Our hypotheses may not be supported. Our ability to access data might evaporate. We may fail to convince a review panel. We may not get that grant or that job position that we were after. How do we deal with such failure when it is so regular and eminent in our work? We are trying to figure that out and also try to find some words of wisdom to pass onto others. Thankfully, we have on the show to help us out. Together, we conclude that resilience is key but different people have different ways to build resilience. As usual, the references to all readings we mention are listed on .

Surprise! is back on the show, our first repeat guest. But only because we continue our recent philosophy of making impromptu changes to our planned recordings. This time we end up talking about presenting research and handling questions from the audience. Jan suggests some jerkiness can be a good thing while Nick things we should all play nice.  And Youngjin? He suggests both is fine. As usual, the references to all readings we mention are listed on .

Jan is in Sweden and the audio quality is not great. Meanwhile, Nick is busy and he needs a dose of project management expertise. We discuss how we manage our time and our projects and how we engage in collaborations. After Recker’s rules for humble-bragging failed to get much traction, we now give you the Berente rules for starting collaborations. As usual, the references to all readings we mention are listed on .

We wanted to talk about something else. But regardless, what matters is that we ended up here: what is positivism and interpretivism – and does that distinction even matter anymore to information systems research in the age of digital traces and computationally-intensive methods? And so this is how you end up with a debate about philosophy without any preparation whatsoever. As usual, the references to all the articles we mention are listed on .