Editors’ Report and Commentary on Volume 18

This report provides an overview of AIS Educator Journal (AISEJ) operations from July 2022 through June 2023, the Volume 18 fiscal year. It also includes our brief comments on the papers published in this volume. We also publish the names of ad hoc reviewers who served during the most recent three fiscal years in the Appendix.

Many papers submitted to the journal include work first disseminated in presentations at the AIS Educator Association (AISEA) annual conference. Using feedback provided by conference attendees, authors often revise their work and submit it to the AISEJ.

We conclude fiscal 2023 with seven papers in process and look forward to continuing increases in submissions.

In recent years, AISEJ editors’ reports have included information about the journal’s acceptance rate. We continue this practice, presenting data about the papers processed during the most recent fiscal year in Table 1.

Using these data, we calculate an acceptance rate for fiscal 2023 of 45% by dividing the number of papers accepted (5) by the sum (11) of the number of papers accepted (5) and rejected (6). Because we publish only one issue each year, the acceptance rate can fluctuate when calculated on an annual basis. We believe a calculation over a longer period better reflects journal practices. Thus, we also report submission processing data for the five most recent years in Table 2.

Using these data, we calculate an average acceptance rate over the most recent five fiscal years of 35% by dividing the number of papers accepted (21) by the sum (60) of the number of papers accepted (21) and rejected (39). The 21 papers accepted during this period were published in Volumes 14 (3), 15 (4), 16 (5), 17 (4), and18(5). These counts include refereed papers only; they do not include editorials. Last year, AISEJ reported a four-year acceptance rate of 33% (Lee & Schneider, 2022).

Betsy Haywood-Sullivan began her term as Senior Editor this fiscal year, with Lorraine Lee returning for another term this fiscal year. Lorraine will continue as Senior Editor for Volume 19 (fiscal 2024), with Betsy Haywood-Sullivan continuing for a three-year term (Volumes 18-20).

Pan and Mazzei (2023) develop a seven-step process of incorporating data analytics into the school’s curriculum. They build their model by pulling from several key curriculum models (Tyler, 1949; Taba, 1962; Wheeler, 1967; and Kern, 2009). Injecting data analytics into business curriculum is vital to our profession and is supported by numerous accrediting (AASCB International, 2018) and credentialing bodies (Tysiac, 2019). This builds on previously-published articles in our journal which show that data analytics and visualization tools are becoming important assets within accounting firms (Lee et al., 2018). Moreover, Gomaa et al. (2021) proposed a data analytics elective course for graduate accounting students. This study shows how analytics can be embedded into an undergraduate curriculum and developed as a concentration for students wanting to specialize in the area. With challenges and lessons learned from their journey, the article provides a valuable resource for those who are interested in data analytics adoption.

Bradley, Behrend and Drum (2023) survey AIS instructors to document characteristics of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) adopters. Employers highly value transaction processing being taught in the AIS class (Garnsey et al., 2019; Weisenfeld et al., 2020), and applying ERP to transaction processing allows for realistic and relevant content in the AIS course (Vician & Mortenson, 2017) They structure their study around five key research questions and tie those questions to the surveyed items. This allows the reader to see the link of the key learning objectives to the reason for the adoptions. They also create a self-assessment tool for academics thinking about adopting ERPs in their own courses.

Hawk (2023) creates an Information Technology (IT) audit case where students perform controls testing by using both Excel and IDEA. This differs from Lee and Sawyer (2019) whose case study focused on user access management within Excel. Her approach focuses on Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS), and along with key information technology concepts, meets the demands of career preparation for our students, (AACSB, 2020; AICPA, 2022; PwC, 2020). Because students apply the same task to two different software applications, they can see the efficiencies in tools developed for specific auditing purposes. The overall case allows students to develop their critical thinking skills (Miri et al., 2007) and prepare themselves for adaptability to various applications in the workplace.

Corradino (2023) develops a teaching case where students analyze business process activities and record transactions in QuickBooks software. Notably, the case takes a business cycle approach and maps business cycles to business process steps to QuickBooks tasks. As QuickBooks is widely-used computerized accounting systems, especially for small businesses, this case represents a practical, real-world scenario that accounting students may encounter in practice.

In the final paper of this issue, King, Church, Schmidt, and Harnowo (2023) position LinkedIn as a technology-based tool for networking. They develop a comprehensive assignment for students to study best practices associated with networking using LinkedIn and to develop their own profile and to begin the networking process through interactions with accounting professionals.

We believe these papers include helpful resources for AIS educators that will help readers do a better job of increasing student learning. Each contributes to the AIS education research literature that can inspire readers to teach better and create new cases, teaching tools, assignments, courses, and programs.

We are grateful to the AISEA, its members, and all our stakeholders who produce and use the content we publish in the journal. The exemplary work of our dedicated Associate Editors deserves recognition, and we thank Dawna Drum, Cynthia Frownfelter-Lohrke, David C. Hayes, Conni Lehmann, Brad Schafer, Gary Schneider, and David Wood.

We also acknowledge the many constructive contributions of our volunteer ad hoc reviewers. Each processed submission requires at least four volunteers (Senior Editor, Associate Editor, and two or three ad hoc reviewers) to evaluate the paper and to write developmental suggestions. The Appendix lists the names of those who reviewed one or more papers during the three years ending with Volume 18. These reviewers’ time and effort are essential to the journal’s quality and reputation. Thank you for making AISEJ a strong and recognized publication outlet for AIS education research. Sincere thanks and special mention also to our editorial assistant, Abby Bensen. We are grateful for her continued work with us.

Finally, we thank everyone who submitted their work to the journal this past year. Without you, we would not exist. We thank each of you for making AISEJ an essential source of AIS education research and teaching resources to our academic community.

We are deeply grateful to the volunteer associate editors and ad hoc reviewers for their outstanding work on papers that appear in this volume. We also appreciate the many scholars who submitted their work to the journal this year.

• Deniz Appelbaum

  Montclair State University

• Matt Behrend

  St. Edwards University

• Daniel Boylan

  Purdue University Fort Wayne

• Jean Ryberg Bradley

  Texas State University

• Gretchen Casterella

  University of North Carolina Wilmington

• Susan Cockrell

  Austin Peay State University

• Lauri Corradino

  Colorado State University-Pueblo

• Ronald J. Daigle

  Sam Houston State University

• Dawna Drum

  University of Western Washington

• Kevin Ennis

  Mississippi State University – Meridian

• Kel-Ann Eyler

  Georgia College & State University

• Kurt Fanning

  Grand Valley State University

• Cynthia Frownfelter-Lohrke

  Samford University

• Sonia Gantman

  Bentley University

• Margaret (Peggy) Garnsey

  Siena College

• Nathan Garrett

  West Virginia University

• Mike Garverick

  Arizona State University

• Victoria Hansen

  University of North Carolina Wilmington

• Holly Hawk

  Clemson University

• David C. Hayes

  James Madison University

• Elizabeth (Betsy) Haywood-Sullivan

  Rider University

• David Henderson

  University of Mary Washington

• Amy Igou

  University of Northern Iowa

• Ethan Kinory

  Rutgers University

• Bonnie Klamm

  North Dakota State University

• Greg Krippel

  Coastal Carolina University

• Sherwood (Lane) Lambert

  University of West Florida

• Sabrina Landa

  California State University, Long Beach

• Lorraine Lee

  University of North Carolina Wilmington

• Constance (Conni) Lehmann

  University of Houston – Clear Lake

• Jie Li

  Indiana University

• Suzette Loving

  University of Denver

• Cathleen McQuillen

  Georgian Court University

• Monica Mendoza

  Stetson University

• Kristian Mortenson

  University of St. Thomas

• Rania Mousa

  University of Evansville

• Pam Neely

  SUNY Brockport

• Ann O’Brien

  University of Wisconsin – Madison

• Richard O’Hara

  University of Scranton

• Fernando Parra

  California State University, Fresno

• Veronica Paz

  Indiana University of Pennsylvania

• Vasant Raval

  Creighton University

• Rebecca Sawyer

  University of North Carolina Wilmington

• Pamela Schmidt

  Washburn University

• Gary Schneider

  California State University, Monterey Bay

• Juergen Sidgman

  University of Alaska Anchorage

• Georgia Smedley

  University of Missouri – Kansas City

• Gregory Tapis

  Missouri State University

• Ryan Teeter

  University of Pittsburgh

• Drew Sellers

  Kent State University

• Surani Nishani Vincent

  University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

• Ting (TJ) Wang

  Governors State University

• Marcia Watson

  University of North Carolina Charlotte

• Leslie Weisenfeld

  Winston-Salem State University

• Clinton (Skip) White

  University of Delaware

• Veronda Willis

  University of Texas at Tyler

• Jack Winstead

  University of South Carolina Aiken

• Jamey Worrell

  University of Alabama at Birmingham