Given that DORA is rarely mentioned in scholarly journals devoted to the information systems (IS) field, it is likely safe to say that most contributors to, and users of, this and other IS journals are unfamiliar with DORA. Although the same holds for other functional areas of business, the situation is quite different in scientific and medical disciplines. Just maybe, these disciplines are onto something – something that could benefit ongoing development and recognition of IS as a discipline. So, what is DORA? Should we care? Why? The answers are important for shaping the development/future of IS as a scholarly discipline, encouraging/facilitating innovation in IS research, allowing/fostering research liberty for young IS scholars, and spurring a productive academic career that avoids disillusionment. Before addressing the questions, think about the state of approaches to evaluating researchers for merit, promotion, tenure, or funding purposes. Disregarding intrusions of organizational politics and personal relationships (which can be quite vexing to those on the short end of power), it seems typical to focus on where a researcher has published his or her work. It is most common for evaluation to focus on placement of articles in journals. This is usually the case for IS, other business disciplines, physical sciences, live sciences, and medical fields. Simply put, the value of a publication is considered to depend primarily on the journal in which it appears. In other words, the value of a gift is considered to depend on judgments about the wrapping that contains it, rather than the nature or utility of the gift itself (Zhang, Rousseau, and Sivertsen 2017). If it has a particular wrapping, then it must certainly be of the highest value. It follows that, if packaged in a different type of wrapping, that very same gift must be less valuable. Adopting such a method for evaluating a researcher’s work means that an article is judged to have less/more merit if it appears in one journal rather than another. Being in one journal versus another somehow diminishes/improves an article’s merit. The article is perceived as becoming imbued with a halo that a journal exudes, and that halo is seen as defining the article’s value. Adopting the halo method of research evaluation transforms the problem from one of assessing the merit of individual articles to the task of assessing the merit of individual journals (i.e., the strengths of their halos; the shininess/aesthetics/approval signaled by the wrapping papers). To support the efforts of evaluators, various approaches have been advanced/adopted for settling on the relative merits of journals in a field. Ultimately, it is the evaluator (or evaluator’s superiors) who selects what journal evaluation approach will be used in a halo exercise. Approaches range from largely subjective to largely objective. Comparative examples of various evaluation approaches can be found in a series of quizzes that are applied to the context of IS journals (Chen and Holsapple 2013). In the subjective case, the degree of strength attributed to a journal’s halo is determined by the evaluator’s (superior’s) vantage point, perspective, interpretations, preconceptions, training, biases, values, and so forth. Examples include relying on tradition, accepting pronouncements by others, or tailoring that accounts for journals that specialize in topics of particular emphasis by an institution or funding agency. In an effort to mitigate drawbacks of subjective methods, more data-driven methods to assess journal merit have been devised, applying various techniques to various kinds of data sets in order to produce: ● a numeric rating for each journal of interest, reflecting the strength of its halo ● a classification of journals into tiers, where the journals in a tier have comparable halos, but differ notably from those in other tiers. JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMPUTING AND ELECTRONIC COMMERCE 2018, VOL. 28, NO. 4, 287–290 https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2018.1522774

中文翻译：

---

现在不是见DORA的时候了吗？

鉴于在致力于信息系统 (IS) 领域的学术期刊中很少提及 DORA，可以肯定地说，该期刊和其他 IS 期刊的大多数贡献者和用户都不熟悉 DORA。虽然其他职能领域的业务也是如此，但科学和医学学科的情况却大不相同。只是也许，这些学科正在做一些事情 - 一些可以有利于持续发展和认可 IS 作为一门学科的东西。那么，什么是朵拉？我们应该关心吗？为什么？这些答案对于塑造信息系统作为一门学术学科的发展/未来、鼓励/促进信息系统研究的创新、允许/促进年轻信息系统学者的研究自由以及促进避免幻灭的富有成效的学术生涯非常重要。在回答问题之前，考虑评估研究人员的功绩、晋升、任期或资助目的的方法状态。不考虑对组织政治和个人关系的干扰（这对于那些处于权力短期内的人来说可能会非常恼火），关注研究人员发表他或她的作品的地方似乎是典型的。评估中最常见的是关注文章在期刊中的位置。IS、其他商业学科、物理科学、生命科学和医学领域通常就是这种情况。简而言之，出版物的价值被认为主要取决于它出现的期刊。换句话说，礼物的价值被认为取决于对包含它的包装的判断，而不是礼物本身的性质或效用（Zhang、Rousseau 和 Sivertsen，2017 年）。如果它有一个特定的包装，那么它肯定是最高的价值。因此，如果包装在不同类型的包装中，同样的礼物肯定不值钱。采用这种方法来评估研究人员的工作意味着如果一篇文章出现在一个期刊而不是另一个期刊上，它就会被判断为具有更少/更多的价值。以某种方式在一个期刊上与另一个期刊相比会减少/提高一篇文章的价值。文章被认为充满了期刊散发的光环，而光环被视为定义了文章的价值。采用研究评估的光环方法将问题从评估单个文章的价值之一转变为评估单个期刊的价值的任务（即光环的优势；包装纸所表明的光泽/美学/认可） . 为了支持评估者的努力，已经提出/采用了各种方法来确定某个领域期刊的相对优点。最终，由评估者（或评估者的上级）选择将在光环练习中使用的期刊评估方法。方法范围从主要主观到主要客观。各种评估方法的比较示例可以在应用于 IS 期刊上下文的一系列测验中找到（Chen 和 Holsapple 2013）。在主观案例中，期刊光环的实力程度取决于评估者（上级）的有利位置、观点、解释、先入之见、培训、偏见、价值观等。例子包括依赖传统，接受他人的声明，或剪裁专门研究机构或资助机构特别强调的主题的期刊。为了减轻主观方法的缺点，设计了更多数据驱动的方法来评估期刊的价值，将各种技术应用于各种数据集，以产生： ● 对每个感兴趣的期刊进行数字评级，反映优势它的光环 ● 将期刊分类为层级，其中一个层级的期刊具有类似的光环，但与其他层级的期刊有显着差异。组织计算和电子商务杂志 2018 年，第一卷。28，没有。4, 287–290 https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2018.1522774 已经设计了更多的数据驱动方法来评估期刊的价值，将各种技术应用于各种数据集，以产生： ● 对每个感兴趣的期刊进行数字评级，反映其光环的强度 ● 期刊分类，其中一个层级的期刊具有类似的光环，但与其他层级的期刊有显着差异。组织计算和电子商务杂志 2018 年，第一卷。28，没有。4, 287–290 https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2018.1522774 已经设计了更多的数据驱动方法来评估期刊的价值，将各种技术应用于各种数据集，以产生： ● 对每个感兴趣的期刊进行数字评级，反映其光环的强度 ● 期刊分类，其中一个层级的期刊具有类似的光环，但与其他层级的期刊有显着差异。组织计算和电子商务杂志 2018 年，第一卷。28，没有。4, 287–290 https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2018.1522774 组织计算和电子商务杂志 2018 年，第一卷。28，没有。4, 287–290 https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2018.1522774 组织计算和电子商务杂志 2018 年，第一卷。28，没有。4, 287–290 https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2018.1522774