When “top journals” stop being about knowledge: Reflections from an ICT4D researcher
I have never had trouble acknowledging that journals such as MIS Quarterly and Information Systems Research carry extraordinary prestige in the Information Systems (IS) field. Publishing in them looks impressive on a CV, signals excellence to hiring and tenure committees, and can open many professional doors. That much is not controversial.
What is more difficult, and more interesting, is asking what this prestige actually represents, and whether it aligns with how scholarship grows.
As an ICT4D researcher, I often experience a quiet disconnect between ranking culture and my intellectual commitments. My work focuses on information and communication technologies in development contexts, often involving public sector actors, NGOs, and communities outside the usual organizational settings privileged in mainstream IS research. When people speak of “top IS journals,” they usually mean outlets that have converged around particular topics, methods, and genres of contribution. These outlets are excellent at what they do, but what they do is not the whole of IS.
This raises an uncomfortable question: when we call certain journals “top,” are we ranking intellectual quality, or are we ranking conformity to a dominant research template?
Journal rankings did not emerge to advance knowledge; they emerged to solve an organizational problem. Universities need simple, standardized signals to evaluate productivity, reduce uncertainty, and compare scholars across institutions and countries. Rankings perform this function efficiently. But efficiency is not the same as intellectual depth. The values embedded in ranking systems—predictability, comparability, risk minimization—are far closer to corporate logic than to scholarly inquiry.
Scholarship, especially in qualitative, interpretive, and ICT4D traditions, does not grow through standardization. It grows through plurality, slow engagement, disagreement, and attention to contexts that do not scale easily. Much of the most meaningful IS research challenges dominant assumptions rather than reinforcing them. Ranking culture, by contrast, rewards work that fits comfortably within already-legitimized boundaries.
This is where the issue becomes more than personal preference. If MISQ and ISR are treated as the definitive markers of “top IS research,” then certain forms of inquiry are structurally disadvantaged. ICT4D research, critical studies, regionally grounded qualitative work, and research addressing societal or developmental concerns often appear peripheral, not because they lack rigor, but because they address different questions, audiences, and moral commitments. In effect, rankings end up defining what counts as IS, rather than merely evaluating how well research is done.
Yet rejecting rankings outright does not make them disappear. Most scholars live with a kind of double awareness: we recognize that rankings are poor proxies for intellectual value, but we still have to navigate them strategically. This tension is not hypocrisy; it is a realistic response to how academia currently operates.
The more constructive question, then, is not how to replace rankings, but how scholarship actually circulates and gains influence beyond them.
Ideas spread through communities, not brands. They move through conferences, workshops, doctoral consortia, reading groups, and long-term conversations among scholars who care about similar problems. Journals matter, but as intellectual homes rather than trophies. Conferences are not merely stepping stones to publication; they are primary sites of dissemination and debate. Teaching plays a crucial role when research becomes part of syllabi and shapes how students learn to think. Open scholarship, policy engagement, and public writing extend the reach of research well beyond academic evaluation systems.
From this perspective, dissemination is less about asking “where should I publish to be ranked well?” and more about asking “who do I want to be in conversation with?” For ICT4D researchers, that conversation often spans disciplines, regions, and sectors. Its impact may be slower, less legible to ranking systems, and harder to quantify, but it is no less real.
Ranking culture optimizes for evaluation. Scholarship optimizes for understanding. Confusing the two is a category error, even if it is an institutionalized one.
Recognizing this does not make someone disengaged from the field. If anything, it reflects a commitment to what academia is supposed to be: not a production line of branded outputs, but a space for sustained, pluralistic inquiry into problems that matter.
Share this post
Thapa, D., 2026. When “top journals” stop being about knowledge: Reflections from an ICT4D researcher. Quality in Scientific Scholarship (QISS) research group. Retrieved May 13, 2026, from https://qiss.no/blog-post/?A3MFk5dyu3gafgm0wR7Exw==
Author
Devinder Thapa
.. is a Professor at the University of Agder, Norway. His research interest is Information and Communication Technology for Development (ICT4D). He is also interested in the Philosophy of Science and Technology - especially the harmony between eastern and western philosophy and their application in research. He is currently on the Editorial Board of Information Systems Journal (ISJ) and Communications of the Associations for Information Systems (CAIS).