Journal Operations

Many papers submitted to the journal include work first disseminated in presentations at the AIS Educator Association (AISEA) annual conference. Using feedback provided by conference attendees, authors often revise their work and submit it to the AISEJ.

The global pandemic, which forced the cancellation of the conference in 2020 and the need to run the conference fully online in 2021, had reduced the number of papers submitted during the previous volume’s fiscal year. With the AISEA conference returning to an in-person format in 2022, we saw an increase in journal submissions that we hope means the pandemic’s impact is waning. We conclude fiscal 2022 with nine papers in process and look forward to continuing increases in submissions as we plan another in-person conference for 2023.

Submission Processing

In recent years, AISEJ editors’ reports have included information about the journal’s acceptance rate. We continue this practice, presenting data about the papers processed during the most recent fiscal year in Table 1.

Table 1 Papers Submitted and Processed July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022

View Fullscreen

Using these data, we calculate an acceptance rate for fiscal 2022 of 25% by dividing the number of papers accepted (4) by the sum (16) of the number of papers accepted (4) and rejected (12). Because we publish only one issue each year, the acceptance rate can fluctuate when calculated on an annual basis. We believe a calculation over a longer period better reflects journal practices. Thus, we also report submission processing data for the four most recent years in Table 2.

Table 2 Papers Submitted and Processed July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2022

View Fullscreen

Using these data, we calculate an average acceptance rate over the most recent four fiscal years of 33% by dividing the number of papers accepted (16) by the sum (49) of the number of papers accepted (16) and rejected (33). The 16 papers accepted during this period were published in Volumes 14 (3), 15 (4), 16 (5), and 17 (4). These counts include refereed papers only; they do not include editorials. Last year, AISEJ reported a three-year acceptance rate of 35% (Church & Schneider, 2021).

Editors’ Commentary on Papers Published in Volume 17

Behrend and Bradley (2022) present a semester-long, semi-structured experiential learning (Kolb & Kolb, 2005) case in which students identify tasks, procedures, and personnel in a real business process; specify internal controls and recommend improvements, summarizing findings using flowcharting tools in a formal presentation. Instead of the written process descriptions (used in, for example, Davis et al., 2017; Lee & Sawyer, 2019; Lehmann & Hao, 2020; and Raval & Raval, 2019), the case has students interact with real business process owners as they identify, document, and assess the business process and the related internal controls. In this case, students think critically and use active learning methods to hone their written and oral communication skills (Butler et al., 2019). The paper includes advice on synchronizing the case elements with topics taught and suggests timing alternatives adopters can use to customize them to fit specific course sequencing.

From approximately 2009 to 2019, a toxic management environment at Wells Fargo fostered aggressive sales practices that were reported widely in the business press (see, for example, Glazer, 2017, January 7-8; Glazer, 2018; Glazer et al., 2016, December 28; Morgensen & Glazer, 2018, February 12; and Scudder, 2016). Haywood-Sullivan (2022b) draws on the COSO (2017) Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework and the ethics codes of professional accounting organizations to create an assignment in which students link ethics issues at Wells Fargo with risk management assessments. Students conclude the assignment by writing detailed, actionable guidance for improving risk management at Wells Fargo. The assignment, motivated by Butcher (2020) and Tennant (2023), builds on Patelli (2022) to provide critical thinking practice in linking ethics with organizational outcomes (Epley & Kumar, 2019). The paper concludes with efficacy results for the assignment and suggestions for implementation.

Daigle and Hayes (2022), former editors of the AISEJ, undertake a comprehensive classification and analysis of the 60 articles published in its first 14 volumes. In this paper, they extend Fordham (2012), which described the journal's formation and summarized its first seven years. They create a database in spreadsheet form and provide analyses by attributes, including author, institutional affiliation, and editor. The paper concludes with insights into the journal’s history, development, and future directions.

Baldwin, et al. (2022) conduct a bibliometric analysis (Nicholas & Ritchie, 1978) of the journal’s first 15 volumes that complements Daigle and Hayes (2022), adding information about author origins, ranking authors’ employing and doctoral institutions, and ranking individual authors by journal article output. The paper also provides a topical analysis of the articles published. Taken together, these two papers provide an excellent overview of the journal’s output and identify opportunities for future research.

Volume 17 concludes with Haywood-Sullivan’s (2022a) paper, which uses a design science approach to increase digital acumen coverage in an AIS course. Design science methods can yield relevant and novel intentional artifacts (Geerts, 2011; Hevner et al., 2004). This paper presents useful artifacts (assignments) that readers can use in their courses, but it also details how to use design science methods to create (and revise) them. Thus, the paper responds to calls for accounting instructors to help new graduates understand technology innovations and know how to use them (AICPA, 2022; Tosczak, 2023). Readers can use the assignments presented or the design science approach described to revise or create their own assignments to enhance students' digital acumen or achieve other learning outcomes.

We believe these five papers include helpful resources for AIS educators that will help readers do a better job of increasing student learning. Each contributes significantly to the AIS education research literature that can inspire readers to teach better and create new cases, teaching tools, assignments, courses, and programs.

Conclusion

We are grateful to the AISEA, its members, and all our stakeholders who produce and use the content we publish in the journal. The exemplary work of our dedicated Associate Editors deserves recognition, and we thank Dawna Drum, David C. Hayes, Betsy Haywood-Sullivan, Conni Lehmann, Brad Schafer, and David Wood.

We also acknowledge the many constructive contributions of our volunteer ad hoc reviewers. Each processed submission requires at least four volunteers (Senior Editor, Associate Editor, and two or three ad hoc reviewers) to evaluate the paper and to write developmental suggestions. The Appendix lists the names of those who reviewed one or more papers during the three years ending with Volume 17. These reviewers’ time and effort are essential to the journal’s quality and reputation. Thank you for making AISEJ a strong and recognized publication outlet for AIS education research. Sincere thanks and special mention also to our editorial assistant, Abby Bensen. We are grateful for her continued work with us.

Finally, we thank everyone who submitted their work to the journal this past year. Without you, we would not exist. We thank each of you for making AISEJ an essential source of AIS education research and teaching resources to our academic community.