To qualify for publication in a top-tier information systems (IS) journal, such as the European Journal of Information Systems (EJIS), an article must make a substantial contribution to knowledge. In this editorial, we expand on the idea that empirical contributions, in addition to theoretical contributions, can be important to knowledge advancement (Ågerfalk, 2014). We do this by distinguishing and contrasting empirical and artefactual contributions and relate them to their possible implications for research and practice. Acknowledging the value of artefactual contributions is particularly relevant to IS and EJIS considering how action research (Baskerville & Wood-Harper, 1998), design science research (DSR) (Hevner et al., 2004), and their combination (Ågerfalk, 2019; Mullarkey &Hevner, 2019; Sein et al., 2011; Sein & Rossi, 2019) have become well-established approaches that often feature in European IS research (Ågerfalk, 2018; Peffers et al., 2018; Winter, 2008). Understanding the implications of a contribution is important for understanding the value of the contribution itself (Ågerfalk, 2014). Regrettably, the relationship between a contribution and its implications is often treated incidentally and using standards that compromise a fair review of any particular research. For example, an implication for theory is not always imperative to understand the value of a piece of research. Additionally, when authors claim a practical contribution, they often are not referring to a contribution to practice but to implications for practice. In the following, we acknowledge that a paper might have a strong contribution to knowledge without a strong theoretical contribution (Avison & Malaurent, 2014; Ågerfalk, 2014). For some papers, the emphasis should rather be on empirical or artefactual contributions, followed by possible implications for research, including implications for theorising. We view scientific knowledge development as a practice – that is, we think of research as practices that develop academic knowledge. We furthermore focus on the reporting of research results to present a more informed and precise discussion of contributions and implications, and, as such, help researchers craft and evaluate manuscripts for publication. While also acknowledging theoretical contributions, we pay specific attention to the distinction between empirical contributions and artefactual contributions. 2. Research actors and practices

中文翻译：

---

信息系统研究中的人工和经验贡献

要获得在顶级信息系统 (IS) 期刊上发表的资格，例如欧洲信息系统杂志 (EJIS)，一篇文章必须对知识做出实质性贡献。在这篇社论中，我们扩展了这样一个观点，即除了理论贡献之外，经验贡献对知识进步也很重要（Ågerfalk，2014 年）。我们通过区分和对比经验和人工贡献来做到这一点，并将它们与它们对研究和实践的可能影响联系起来。考虑到行动研究 (Baskerville & Wood-Harper, 1998)、设计科学研究 (DSR) (Hevner et al., 2004) 及其组合 (Ågerfalk, 2019; Mullarkey & Hevner，2019；Sein 等，2011；Sein & Rossi，2019 年）已成为欧洲信息系统研究中经常采用的成熟方法（Ågerfalk，2018 年；Peffers 等人，2018 年；Winter，2008 年）。理解贡献的含义对于理解贡献本身的价值很重要（Ågerfalk，2014 年）。遗憾的是，贡献与其影响之间的关系经常被附带处理，并且使用的标准会损害对任何特定研究的公平审查。例如，对于理解一项研究的价值，理论的含义并不总是必不可少的。此外，当作者声称有实际贡献时，他们通常不是指对实践的贡献，而是指对实践的影响。在下面的，我们承认，一篇论文可能对知识有很大的贡献，而没有强大的理论贡献（Avison & Malaurent，2014；Ågerfalk，2014）。对于某些论文，重点应该放在经验或人工贡献上，然后是对研究的可能影响，包括对理论的影响。我们将科学知识的发展视为一种实践——也就是说，我们将研究视为发展学术知识的实践。此外，我们还专注于研究结果的报告，以对贡献和影响进行更明智和准确的讨论，因此，帮助研究人员制作和评估要发表的手稿。在承认理论贡献的同时，我们特别注意经验贡献和人工贡献之间的区别。2.