, Volume 87, Issue 1, pp 1–16 | Cite as

Exploring the management information systems discipline: a scientometric study of ICIS, PACIS and ASAC



This study examines the identity and development of the management information systems (MIS) field through a scientometric lens applied to three major global, regional and national conferences: International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS) and Administrative Sciences Association of Canada Annual Conference (ASAC). It adapts the conference stakeholder approach to the construction of the identity of the MIS discipline and analyzes the proceedings of these three conferences. The findings suggest that the MIS field has been evolving in terms of collaborative research and scholarly output and has been gradually moving towards academic maturity. The leading MIS conference contributors tend to establish loyalty to a limited number of academic meetings. At the same time, relatively low levels of repeat publication in the proceedings of ICIS, PACIS and ASAC were observed. It was suggested that Lotka’s and Yule-Simon’s bibliometric laws may be applied to measure and predict the degree of conference delegate loyalty.


Management information systems Conference ICIS PACIS ASAC Lotka’s law Yule-Simon’s law Productivity Loyalty 


  1. Agarwal, R., & Lucas, H. C. Jr. (2005). The information systems identity crisis: Focusing on high-visibility and high-impact research. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 381–398.Google Scholar
  2. Barki, H., Rivard, S., & Talbot, J. (1993). A keyword classification scheme for IS research literature: An update. MIS Quarterly, 17(2), 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baskerville, R. L., & Myers, M. (2002). Information systems as a reference discipline. MIS Quarterly, 26(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benamati, J., Serva, M. A., Galletta, D. F., Harris, A., & Niederman, F. (2007). The slippery slope of MIS academia: A discussion of the quest for relevance in our discipline. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 18(Article 32), 657–675.Google Scholar
  5. Benbasat, I., & Weber, R. (1996). Rethinking “diversity” in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 7(4), 389–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Empirical research in information systems: The practice of relevance. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Bonnevie, E. (2003). A multifaceted portrait of a library and information science journal: The case of the journal of information science. Journal of Information Science, 29(1), 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Booker, L., Bontis, N., & Serenko, A. (2008). The relevance of knowledge management and intellectual capital research. Knowledge and Process Management, 15(4), 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bordons, M., Gómez, I., Fernández, M. T., Zulueta, M. A., & Méndez, A. (1996). Local, domestic and international scientific collaboration in biomedical research. Scientometrics, 37(2), 279–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burell, Q. L. (2004). Fitting Lotka’s law: Some cautionary observations on a recent paper by Newby et al. (2003). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(13), 1209–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chan, H. C., Kim, H.-W., & Tan, W. C. (2006). Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(9), 1263–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chua, C., Cao, L., Cousins, K., & Straub, D. W. (2002). Measuring researcher-production in information systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 3, 145–215.Google Scholar
  14. Chung, K. H., & Cox, R. A. K. (1990). Patterns of productivity in the finance literature: A study of the bibliometric distributions. Journal of Finance, 45(1), 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chung, K. H., & Cox, R. A. K. (1994). A stochastic model of Superstardom: An application of the Yule distribution. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 76(4), 771–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Culnan, M. J. (1987). Mapping the intellectual structure of MIS, 1980–1985: A co-citation analysis. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 341–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davenport, T. H., & Markus, M. L. (1999). Rigor vs. relevance revisited: Response to Benbasat and Zmud. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. de Solla Price, D. J. (1961). Science since Babylon. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  19. de Solla Price, D. J. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Dearden, J. (1972). MIS is a mirage. Harvard Business Review, 50(1), 90–99.Google Scholar
  21. deB Beaver, D., & Rosen, R. (1978). Studies in scientific collaboration. Part I. The professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1(1), 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Egghe, L. (2005). The power of power laws and an interpretation of Lotkaian informetric systems as self-similar fractals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(7), 669–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fox, M. F., & Faver, C. A. (1984). Independence and cooperation in research: The motivations and costs of collaboration. Journal of Higher Education, 55(3), 347–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178(4060), 471–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Garfield, E. (1979). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Holsapple, C. W. (2008). The pulse of multiparticipant systems. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 18(4), 333–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huang, H.-H., & Hsu, J. S.-C. (2005). An evaluation of publication productivity in information systems: 1999 to 2003. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 15, 555–564.Google Scholar
  28. Inzelt, A., Schubert, A., & Schubert, M. (2009). Incremental citation impact due to international co-authorship in Hungarian higher education institutions. Scientometrics, 78(1), 37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ives, B., Hamilton, S., & Davis, G. B. (1980). A framework for research in computer-based management information systems. Management Science, 26(9), 910–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Katerattanakul, P., Han, B., & Rea, A. (2006). Is information systems a reference discipline? Communications of the ACM, 49(5), 114–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kretschmer, H., & Rousseau, R. (2001). Author inflation leads to a breakdown of Lotka’s law. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(8), 610–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kuperman, V. (2006). Productivity in the Internet mailing lists: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(1), 51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Levitt, J. M., & Thelwall, M. (2009). Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 60(3), 434–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lipetz, B.-A. (1999). Aspects of JASIS authorship through five decades. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(11), 994–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(2), 317–324.Google Scholar
  36. Lowry, P. B., Karuga, G. G., & Richardson, V. J. (2007). Assessing leading institutions, faculty, and articles in premier information systems research journals. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 20, 142–203.Google Scholar
  37. Mantena, A. A. (1970). Statistical analysis of a scientific discipline: Palynology. Earth-Science Reviews, 6(3), 181–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. I. (1973). A program for research on management information systems. Management Science, 19(5), 475–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McLaren, P. G., & Mills, A. J. (2008). “I’d like to thank the academy”: An analysis of the awards discourse at the Atlantic Schools of Business Conference. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 25(4), 307–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Merton, R. K. (Ed.). (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Merton, R. K. (1976). Sociological ambivalence and other essays. Toronto: Collier Macmillan Canada.Google Scholar
  42. Narin, F., Stevens, K., & Whitlow, E. S. (1991). Scientific co-operation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers. Scientometrics, 21(3), 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nath, R., & Jackson, W. M. (1991). Productivity of management information systems researchers: Does Lotka’s Law apply? Information Processing and Management, 27(2/3), 203–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Neufeld, D., Fang, Y., & Huff, S. (2007). The IS identity crisis. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 19, 447–464.Google Scholar
  45. Newby, G. B., Greenberg, J., & Jones, P. (2003). Open source software development and Lotka’s law: Bibliometric patterns in programming. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(2), 169–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Orlikowski, W. J., & Iacono, C. S. (2001). Desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research—A call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Palvia, P., Leary, D., Mao, E., Midha, V., Pinjani, P., & Salam, A. F. (2004). Research methodologies in MIS: An update. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 14(Article 24), 526–542.Google Scholar
  48. Palvia, P., Mao, E., Salam, A. F., & Soliman, K. S. (2003). Management information systems research: What’s there in a methodology? Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 11(Article 16), 289–309.Google Scholar
  49. Palvia, P., Pinjani, P., & Sibley, E. H. (2007). A profile of information systems research published in Information & Management. Information and Management, 44(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Persson, O., Glänzel, W., & Danell, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics, 60(3), 421–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Robey, D. (1996). Diversity in information systems research: Threat, promise, and responsibility. Information Systems Research, 7(4), 400–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rowlands, I. (2005). Emerald authorship data, Lotka’s law and research productivity. Aslib Proceedings: New information perspectives, 57(1), 5–10.Google Scholar
  53. Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2004). Meta-review of knowledge management and intellectual capital literature: Citation impact and research productivity rankings. Knowledge and Process Management, 11(3), 185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Serenko, A., Bontis, N., & Grant, J. (2009). A scientometric analysis of the proceedings of the McMaster World Congress on the Management of Intellectual Capital and Innovation for the 1996–2008 period. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10(1), 8–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sidorova, A., Evangelopoulos, N., Valacich, J. S., & Ramakrishnan, T. (2008). Uncovering the intellectual core of the information systems discipline. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 467–482.Google Scholar
  57. Simon, H. A. (1955). On a class of skew distribution functions. Biometrika, 42, 425–440.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  58. Straub, D. (2006). The value of scientometric studies: An introduction to a debate on IS as a reference discipline. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(5), 241–245.Google Scholar
  59. Truex, D., Cuellar, M., & Takeda, H. (2009). Assessing scholarly influence: Using the Hirsch indices to reframe the discourse. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(7), 560–594.Google Scholar
  60. Vessey, I., Ramesh, V., & Glass, R. L. (2002). Research in Information Systems: An empirical study of diversity in the discipline and its journals. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(2), 129–174.Google Scholar
  61. Whitley, E. A., & Galliers, R. D. (2007). An alternative perspective on citation classics: Evidence from the first 10 years of the European conference on information systems. Information and Management, 44(5), 441–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Xu, J. & Chau, M. (2006). The social identity of IS: Analyzing the collaboration network of the ICIS conferences (1980–2005): Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Information Systems, Milwaukee, WI. Google Scholar
  63. Yule, G. U. (1924). A mathematical theory of evolution, based on the conclusions of Dr. J. C. Willis, F.R.S. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 213, 21–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mihail Cocosila
    • 1
  • Alexander Serenko
    • 2
  • Ofir Turel
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of BusinessAthabasca UniversityAthabascaCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of Business AdministrationLakehead UniversityThunder BayCanada
  3. 3.Mihaylo College of Business and EconomicsCalifornia State University, FullertonFullertonUSA

Personalised recommendations