karenl : RSS Feed

Comment on "Design Science in Information Systems Research by Hevner, et al"

PBT — Jan 16, 2007 - 2:35pm

Hi Karen

I was just wondering if you would provide me with some examples of

"The authors make new claims in their conclusion that had no evidence, which I think is their way to suggest further investigation on the topic"

and

"Many of the reasons and examples were sometimes circular, often weak, and difficult to understand"

I need it for a presentation tomorrow :)

Comment on "Review of Zmud's, Lee's, and Saunders's commentaries"

Avra Elbinger — Dec 4, 2006 - 2:03pm

After reading these three monographs, I also have a better appreciation for the journal articles we read during the semester. We were all playing the role of the overly critical reviewer. We were even critical of articles written by editors. And, as you said, the actual MIS Quarterly reviewers, who might have been even more critical, worked with the authors as diamond cutters. I feel now that when it is my turn to write an article, that I don't have to fear that it must be absolutely perfect to be given a chance.

Comment on "Review of Zmud's, Lee's, and Saunders's commentaries"

Sumonta Kasemvilas — Dec 4, 2006 - 1:41pm

Information technology cannot solve every problem, especially problems relating to humans. I am impressed with the real review process that Lee gave in his comments. It makes me understand the whole process and better know what I should plan in order to submit a paper. I also agree with you that nothing is perfect. For papers that we read in whole semester, I believe that most readers feel that they should have been done better than this. However, these papers make contribution to IS field and this is an important factor when editors consider publishing any papers.

Comment on "Review of Zmud's, Lee's, and Saunders's commentaries"

Jesus Canelon — Dec 4, 2006 - 8:21am

After I read these three comments, I felt like any of those critics reviewer on every Monday class, but the important thing on those papers, as you mention, the paper’s contribution to the field.

Writing a Dissertation

Karen Lum — Dec 3, 2006 - 9:49pm

Writing a dissertation seems like a long and arduous journey. Most of us are only at the beginning of such a journey. This current book looks like a good guide to help us plan the trip so that it is not as hard. I hope that I will be able to be like the second case study guy and not like the first case study person who hurt his family and career life to get his disseration done because he did not have a plan. I am not sure that I am ready to develop a plan for a dissertation yet, but this is defintely a good idea.

Review of Zmud's, Lee's, and Saunders's commentaries

Karen Lum — Nov 30, 2006 - 9:19pm

The editor-in-chief of MISQ in 1998, Bob Zmud, wrote this monograph or commentary on journal refereeing in order to encourage more scholars to participate in the refereeing process, and to give referees suggestions on how to produce quick, useful reviews. The editor feels that not enough people volunteer to referee papers, reviews cycles are taking too long, and referees are often too critical of the papers they review. Zmud offers suggestions for giving better, faster, and useful reviews.

The editor-in-chief of MISQ in 1999, Allan Lee, wrote a monograph of how IT plays a role in the manuscript review process. He points out that while IT plays a role in speeding up certain parts of the process, the human review has the biggest impact for a timely and quality review. The timeline of an actual review that he did truly gives me an appreciation of the whole process.

The editor-in-chief of MISQ in 2005, Carol Saunders, wrote a monograph to find new sources for reviewers and to encourage reviewers to do “developmental reviewing” rather than “gatekeeper reviewing” to increase the publication acceptance rate. She uses the metaphor of reviewers as skilled diamond cutters to turn rough manuscripts into gems. Now I have a better appreciation of all the articles we have read this past semester – not all papers are perfect and they are gems with minor flaws that make a contributions to the field that we can learn from.

Comment on "Review of Behavioral Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing"

Jesus Canelon — Nov 26, 2006 - 8:09pm

Karen, you mention “because of the lack of detail, the quality of the study is questionable,” but maybe that’s the price that the researchers have to pay for a shorter study

Comment on "Sciences of the Artificial"

Frank Moss — Nov 26, 2006 - 6:55pm

This one is definitely going to require a couple more look-throughs to get it all. Simon writes very dense prose.

Sciences of the Artificial

Karen Lum — Nov 26, 2006 - 5:19pm

I'm almost done reading the whole book, but know that I wont't have time to post by blog entry before I finish. So here are my thoughts so far. Although I think the book was often hard to follow, I think Herbert Simon is a genius. He somehow combined, cognitive psychology with econonomics with engineering and with computer science. I find his analogies and explanations to pull all these together very fascinating. I still find some of his discussion about theories and articficial systems a little confusing.

Comment on "Review of Behavioral Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing"

Sumonta Kasemvilas — Nov 26, 2006 - 2:10pm

I think that this study is easy to read but the authors use some vocabularies that are difficult to the reader to understand. However, I like this article because the authors provide methodology quite in details. In addition, I like the point that you mention in your last paragraph. You can make me rethink about this article again.