(7). Academic complaints. University regulations, some of which are reprinted in your copy of the KSU telephone directory, govern many aspects of our classes, including academic complaints.

B_AD 84007 was designed to familiarize the student with the environment of refereed journal research in the field of Information Systems/Information Technology. "Technology" is understood here in the sense that the Information Systems function in the business world is as often refereed to as IT as it is referenced as IS. We are still talking about the design, management, and use of computerized information systems for organizational objectives.

To this end, we will read and discuss a number of papers published in refereed journals, in order to understand several ways in which one can conduct some research that will fall successfully into some category that a reviewer and an editor regards as meriting publication. We will look for various papers published in refereed journals that are examples, respectively, of controlled laboratory experiment, survey, field study, case study, executive interviews, literature review coupled with theoretical model building, actual system development with testing and described usefulness.

We will have eight class sessions focusing on discussion of papers we have read. I expect you to bring to class sets of systematic notes (See the electronic handout "Notes on Refereed Journal Articles") for each of the articles scheduled for discussion. The rest of our class meetings will focus on writing for and performing editorial review services for an imaginary new journal in information systems. Based on shared interests, the class will be divided into two groups of approximately equal size. Collectively each of the two groups will function as groups of editorial reviewers. The instructor for the course will act as Senior Editor, a role that includes guiding the discussion of submitted papers when it gets off course. Each of the two groups will elect an Associate Editor. The Associate Editor will assign papers submitted for publication to the various members of the group in whatever manner seems effective. Thus, the members of the group will function as reviewers. This is an imitation of the refereed journal process. When someone submits a paper for possible publication, it is given a review by knowledgeable professionals who recommend accepting the paper, rejecting it, or suggesting a number of changes to the author.

The papers that each of the two editorial groups will be reviewing come from the other half of the class. Group 1 submits, individually, their papers to Panel 1. At the same time, the individuals in Group 1 are also the editorial members of Panel 2 and as such they review the papers submitted by the other half of the class.

Each student in the class will submit work to the reviewers in the other half of the class in three stages – outline, mid-semester working draft, and final draft of the paper. Note that the student as researcher will be required to submit to the board of reviewers both the outline in electronic form and an electronic or a hard copy version of the notes that he/she has made on a number of articles. Again, see the four examples of these notes elsewhere on this web site.

Note that a major responsibility of each student as author is to make available to the rest of the class a small number (typically 2 or 3) of important published papers from the literature relevant to his or her ongoing research paper. You may do this by giving us a reliable online source, including the university library database, or by providing hard copies if online access is not readily available. We need access to these background papers in a timely fashion, that is, in time for the review panel to have read them before they evaluate your outline. At the same time, you must make access available to these papers for the whole class.

At each stage the student will receive a critique from the reviewers and incorporate the recommended changes in her or his ongoing work. At each stage the work of every student will be posted on this web site and everyone will have the opportunity to follow the progress of everyone’s work. Each time an editorial board of reviewers presents their critique of what they have received, we will all have had the opportunity to read the work that is being discussed.

At the end of our class on 14 October, for example, Panel 1 will be graded by the other half of the class on how well they have done their jobs. As Senior Editor, the instructor’s ratings will count equally with the average of those of the class, and the two resulting ratings will be further averaged. Then Panel 1 will receive a total number of points to divide among themselves towards their grades depending on how the group rates each member’s performance.

Similarly, in addition to giving good comments offering guidance to the author for further work on the paper, Panel 1 will give a grade, in points, to each author in Group 1, and similarly for Panel 2 and Group 2. Again, the instructor, as Senior Editor, has a vote equal to that of each Panel and the resulting two assignments of points earned will be averaged.

But the bottom line on this is that I am NOT requiring you in this course to use any article from a refereed journal that you cannot access for free on line. If you are desperately curious to get an article unavailable online into your hands, the library will help you, for a fee. If you are seriously going to consider submitting your paper to a real journal, you may find it worthwhile to pay for some articles. However, I will accept your work – and I expect our in-course editorial boards to do the same – from issues that are a year or two old if those are the only ones you can get on line without paying. There is plenty of very good work you can do on that basis, and, after all, we are practicing here. Finally, some journals are much more generous than others about making their current or at least recent work available on line. I have given them my preference in the assigned readings.

1. Liging Zhang, R. et al, "Self-adaptive blind source separation based on activation functions adaptation," IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, Mar 2004, Vol. 15, issue 2, p.233. This is a well written example of a type of research paper that does no actual new investigation, but presents a theory related to an important controversy in the literature.

2. Zhou, L. et al, "A comparison of classification methods for predicting deception in computer-mediated communication," Journal of Management Information Systems, Spring 2004, Vol.20 issue 4, p. 139. Exact contrast with the previous paper – detailed investigative work.

3. Kohli, R. and Devaraj, S., "Measuring information technology payoff: a meta-analysis of structural variables in firm-level empirical research," Information Systems Research, June 2003, Vol. 14, issue 2, p. 127. This is one of many papers that address the "productivity paradox." It is also an example of a research paper done strictly as meta-analysis.

4. Peace, A. et al, "Software piracy in the workplace: a model and empirical test," Journal of Management Information Systems, Summer 2003. Vol.20 issue 1, p. 153. This is an example of the traditional research paper; theoretical model connects literature and derived new data gathering.

5. Galliers, R. and Meadows, M., "A discipline divided: globalization and parochialism in information systems research," Communications of AIS, Vol. 2003 issue 11, p.108. This is discussion of the discipline of IS research (meta-research), not of a specific research issue. Very valuable for our course.

6. Pavlia, P. et al, "Management information systems research: what’s there in a methodology?", Communications of AIS, Vol. 2003, issue 11, p. 289. More meta-research.

7. Van der Aaist, W. and Kumar, A., "XML-based scheme definition for support of interorganizational workflow," Information Systems Research, Mar 2003, Vol. 14 issue 1, p.23. Papers based on actual program development are important in IS research. Besides, this paper addresses information management issues as well.

8. Sussman, S. et al, "Informational influence in organizations: an integrated approach to knowledge adoption," Information Systems Research, Mar 2003, Vol. 14, issue 1, p. 47. Addresses the topic of Knowledge Management; applies the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM); classic structure for research paper.

9. Berthon, P.et al, "Potential research space in MIS: a framework for envisioning and evaluating research replication, extension, and generation," Information Systems Research, Dec. 2002, vol. 13, issue 4, p. 146. More meta-research. An issue of momentous importance and seldom addressed in our discipline – if an explanation is scientific, then the experiment can be replicated.

10. Sipior, J. et al, "A strategic response to the broad spectrum of internet abuse," Information Systems Management, Fall 2002, Vol. 19 issue 4, p. 71. Refereed practitioner journal, but good paper. Topic of internet privacy issues.

11. Buchholz, R.et al, "Internet privacy: individual rights and the common good," SAM Advanced Management Journal, Winter 2002, vol. 67, issue 1, p. 34.

12. Bejot, M., "European treatment of internet privacy issues," Journal of Internet Law, Jan 2001, vol. 4 issue 7, p. 1. Good opportunity to get look beyond a perspective limited to the U.S. business community.

13. Gefen, D., "What makes an ERP implementation relationship worthwhile: linking trust mechanisms and ERP Usefulness," Journal of Management Information Systems, Summer 2004, vol. 21, issue 1, p. 263. Topic of Enterprise Resource Planning systems, related to productivity paradox research – whether IS investment simply cannot be shown to be productive or whether we still are not doing the research correctly.

14. Dixon, D., "The truce between LEAN and IT, Industrial Engineer: IE, June 2004, vol. 36, issue 6, p. 42. This is related to ERP topic. While strictly a trade journal piece, this paper provides very good basic information concerning Lean Manufacturing approaches compared with ERP.

15. Ramiller, N. and Swanson, E., "Organizing visions for information technology and the information systems executive responses," Journal of Management Information Systems, Summer 2003, vol. 20 issue 1, p. 13. Topic of data warehousing. It is a bit more difficult to access papers on line on this topic than on some others.

16. Lightner, N., "What users want in e-commerce design: effects of age, education and income," Ergonomics, January 2003, vol. 46, issue 1-3, p. 153. Topic of user satisfaction.

17. Kujala, S., "User involvement: a review of the benefits and challenges," Behaviour & Information Technology, Jan 2003, vol. 22, issue 1, p. 1. User satisfaction.

18. Sobiesiak, R., "DB2 universal database: a case study of a successful user-centered design program," International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, September 2002, vol. 14 issue 3, p. 279. User satisfaction. Case study methodology example.

19. Downing, C. et al, "The value of outsourcing: a field study," Information Systems Management, Winter 2003, vol. 20 issue 1, p. 86. Topic of outsourcing the IS function. Also example of field study methodology, although practitioner journal.

20. Rajkumar, T. and Mani, R., "Offshore software development," Information Systems Management, Spring 2001, vol. 18 issue 2, p. 63.

21. Zhu, K., "The complementarity of information technology infrastructure and e-commerce capability: a resource-based assessment of their business value," Journal of Management Information Systems, summer 2004, vol. 21 issue 1, p. 167. Topic of e-commerce. Also involves perspective of the "Resource Based View" of management.

22. Filson, D, "The impact of e-commerce strategies on firm value: lessons learned from Amazon.com and its early competitors," Journal of Business, april 2004, vol. 77, p. 135.