Every year, the Information Systems Journal (ISJ) receives hundreds of papers for review and potential publication. When a new submission is received, we pay careful attention to the positioning and motivation, and on a related note, to the contribution of the submitted paper. The positioning and motivation of the paper strongly determine how the contribution emerges in the latter half of the paper. They are, therefore, quite salient with respect to how the study is conceived and executed. In this editorial, we draw attention to the positioning and motivation of research that is submitted for publication. We also intend to provide potential authors with insights into our expectations.

In our experience as editors, we find that authors quite often neglect the positioning and motivation of their submissions. Indeed, the lack of any detailed treatment is often reflected in the reject letter: “we are unable to discover why you undertook this research”. We commonly find that after a cursory introduction, authors plunge headlong into the literature review and hypotheses development (in the case of a quantitative study) or methodology (in the case of a qualitative study). Following the emergent findings (qualitative studies) or hypotheses testing (quantitative studies), we see a summary and routine discussion of the contribution of the work.

It is crucial to realize that papers following this model are unlikely to fare very well in the ISJ review process. Methodological rigor is of course important, but it is not sufficient to guarantee publication. Authors must also deliver a compelling contribution in terms of theory or design (e.g., an artifact). This is where the issues of positioning and motivation become critical, because these considerations ultimately shape both the theory and the contribution.

We are not saying that submitted papers at ISJ lack any positioning or motivation. However, they are often weak and poorly presented. Exactly who should care about the research, and why, is frequently ignored. What is very popular is the tendency to highlight “gaps” in the existing literature and then to concoct an argument whereby the submitted study addresses those gap(s). We refer to this as “gap‐spotting” research, which has been demonstrated as having severe limitations (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011). While librarians might care about gaps on the shelf and dentists may be troubled by gaps in your teeth, we suggest that researchers should tread warily where gaps are concerned.

The many practitioners of gap‐spotting research tend to argue that because something has not yet been done, there is value (a contribution) in doing it. However, this is a fallacious argument. The fact that there is a gap in the literature (e.g., some unanswered question) does not necessarily mean that it is worthwhile to plug it. For example, nobody may have investigated if eating chocolates increases programming efficiency. There may well be a connection (chocolate contains sugar, amongst other things, and sugar provides energy) but is this a connection that is worth pursuing, especially in IS research? Even if we find that eating chocolates is positively associated with programming efficiency, what are the practical implications? Should companies distribute chocolates to their programmers every day? Should people who are chocolate or sugar intolerant shun the career of programmer? Is this the kind of contribution to the IS literature (as opposed to Food Science or Human Resources Management) that we wish to publish?

Although this is an extreme and somewhat ridiculous example, it serves to showcase that research should be meaningful in its academic and practical implications and not engaged with just for its own sake. The key concept here is relevance, not only to the practitioner community, but also to the academic community. Academicians will see the value of research only when it needs to be done, and not just when it can be done. The gap‐spotting approach often demonstrates that a research can be done, but it does not necessarily mean that it should be done.

每年，《信息系统杂志》（ISJ）都会收到数百篇论文进行审查和发表。收到新的论文时，我们会特别注意论文的定位和动机，并在相关的说明中关注论文的贡献。论文的定位和动机在很大程度上决定了论文后半部分的贡献。因此，对于研究的构思和执行方式，它们非常重要。在这篇社论中，我们提请注意提交出版的研究的定位和动机。我们还打算为潜在的作者提供对我们期望的见解。

根据我们作为编辑的经验，我们发现作者经常忽略其论文的定位和动机。实际上，拒绝信中经常反映出缺乏任何详细的处理：“我们无法发现您为何进行这项研究”。我们通常会发现，在粗略介绍之后，作者们全力投入文献综述和假设发展（在定量研究的情况下）或方法论（在定性研究的情况下）。在出现新发现（定性研究）或假设检验（定量研究）之后，我们将对工作的贡献进行总结和常规讨论。

至关重要的是要意识到遵循这种模型的论文在ISJ审查过程中不太可能取得很好的进展。严格的方法固然重要，但不足以保证出版。作者还必须在理论或设计（例如人工制品）方面做出令人信服的贡献。在这里，定位和动力问题变得至关重要，因为这些考虑最终决定了理论和贡献。

我们并不是说在ISJ上提交的论文没有任何定位或动机。但是，它们通常很薄弱且表现不佳。究竟谁应该关心这项研究，以及为什么，经常被忽略。流行的趋势是强调现有文献中的“空白”，然后编造一个论点，从而使提交的研究解决这些空白。我们将其称为“差距发现”研究，该研究已被证明具有严重的局限性（Alvesson＆Sandberg，2011）。尽管图书馆员可能会在意架子上的缝隙，而牙医可能会因牙齿上的缝隙而感到困扰，但我们建议研究人员在涉及缝隙时要谨慎行事。

差距发现研究的许多实践者倾向于认为，由于尚未完成某项工作，因此这样做具有价值（一种贡献）。但是，这是一个谬论。文献中存在差距（例如，一些未解决的问题）的事实并不一定意味着有必要加以弥补。例如，可能没有人调查过吃巧克力是否可以提高编程效率。可能存在联系（巧克力中除其他外含糖，而糖提供能量），但这是值得追求的联系，尤其是在IS研究中？即使我们发现吃巧克力与编程效率有正相关，有什么实际意义？公司是否应该每天向其程序员分发巧克力？不耐巧克力或糖的人应该避免程序员的职业吗？这是我们希望发表的对IS文献（与食品科学或人力资源管理相对）的贡献吗？

尽管这是一个极端且有些荒谬的例子，但它足以说明研究在学术和实践意义上应该是有意义的，而不是仅仅出于自己的目的而参与。这里的关键概念是相关性，不仅与从业者社区相关，而且与学术界相关。院士只会在需要完成研究时才看到研究的价值，而不仅仅是在可以完成时才看到。差距发现方法通常表明可以进行研究，但这并不一定意味着应该进行研究。