Two articles published in this issue (Wade et al. and ours) through similar analyses reach contrasting conclusions on whether Information Systems, as a field, is evolving toward a reference discipline. In this article, we provide a critique of Wade et al. We first assess our different interpretations of reference discipline, and then discuss the consequences of including highly related disciplines in citation analysis. Finally, we illustrate the sensitivity of Wade et al.'s results to the inclusion and exclusion of certain journals. We also consider potential interpretations of second degree citations. It is hoped that the arguments presented here reconcile the differences as we collectively advance thinking on the state of IS as a reference discipline.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.