Session 2: Qualities (teaching notes)

Reminder: submission / presentation dates

TODO : select the most suitable warm-up exercise (see slide in comments).

Optionals

• Discuss the coding of a paper according to PRISMA
• Highlight that it is useful to do that for the review protocol/paper (check whether you can see the type of review from the methods, code it according to PRISMA)

Exercise: Best paper award

Groups: according to the review types that students selected (or are interested in).

Qualities

Ask students what affects quality/citations.

Given that transparency is significant, why do some reviews not report their methods explicitly? For example, Alavi and Leidner (2001). Try to take their position and argue why a methods section would not be helpful for their work.

Reporting standards

Discuss: which aspects of systematicity/transparency are important for your review, which ones will you skip?

Theoretical contributions

• Study specific exemplars

Research agenda

Application: read exemplars of research agendas, discuss the key elements, how you research agenda could be developed

The impact of a research agenda: Foresight (research agenda) -> Scientific impact

Summary

Note: theoretical or empirical contribution: not based on the evidence.

• We can assume that highly transparent papers that lack a contribution will not be cited.

TODO

• Add theoretical review examples (in the review-panel assessment)
• Add for theoretical contributions: Rivard 2024 JSIS. Ideally, link to an overview of IS review papers (filtered for impact). Mention scholarship.