The Perceived Impact of <i>Journal of Information Systems</i> on Promotion and Tenure
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT During the promotion and tenure process, most institutions evaluate whether the candidate has published in high-quality research journals. This study examines the perceived impact of the Journal of Information Systems (JIS) on the promotion and tenure process. The research surveys 149 accounting information systems professors and 36 accounting department leaders. Results suggest that 62 percent of respondents indicated the JIS was very impactful on the promotion and tenure process, while 34 percent perceived the journal to play only a supportive role to higher-ranked journals. Further, senior scholars hold a higher perception of JIS's impact, while those who have served as external reviewers for promotion and tenure committees hold lower perceptions. Finally, results indicate a negative association between perceived promotion and tenure impact and whether the respondent is from a private institution, a larger-sized institution, and if the institution offers a doctoral program. Data Availability: All data used in this study are available upon request. The survey may be found in the online resources.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it