Global Journal Prestige and Supporting Disciplines: A Scientometric Study of Information Systems Journals

Many argue that the Information Systems (IS) field is at a critical juncture in its evolving identity. In debating whether the IS field is in crisis, we agree with Hirschheim and Klein (2003) that reflective analysis will contribute to the field's continued prosperity. Indeed, reflective analysis is needed to evaluate the journals of the field as well as IS journal rankings, which evaluate the effectiveness and productivity of researchers and the effectiveness and productivity of journals in communicating research results. After all, where and how we publish are fundamental aspects of the identity of the IS field - reflecting our value systems, paradigms, cultural practices, reward systems, political hierarchy, and aspirations.This article reviews the results of the largest global, scientometric survey to date of IS journal rankings that targeted 8741 faculty from 414 IS departments world-wide, and resulted in 2559 responses, or a 32% response rate. Rather than using predetermined journal lists, the study required respondents to freely recall their top-four research journals.This research improves on the usual scientometric journal ranking studies by providing a foundation for further reflection and self-analysis. For instance, it first examines the global structure of the IS field and investigates perceptions among global IS academics concerning current research outlets. Specific results then illustrate the values and cultural norms in the global IS community that affect the evaluation of research and publication outlets. Finally, in addition to rankings of scholarly journals by the entire world-wide sample of IS academics, rankings are provided for top IS practitioner journals, most frequently read IS journals, top journals for the major IS supporting disciplines, and top journals by world region.