Digital technologies have radically altered the nature of innovation and its development process. Innovations in the digital age are characterized by a reliance on a network of diverse actors who champion innovation. Despite the important role of these innovation actors' social networks in enabling interactions and collaboration for developing innovation, extant research lacks a synthesis of knowledge on innovation actors' social networks in the digital age. We provide a multi-disciplinary literature review on the social network of actors championing innovation and its interplay with digital technology based on a theoretical framework derived from social network research. Our analysis gives insights into the flows and structure of innovation actors' social networks. We find that digital technology has predominantly led to gradual changes in innovation actors' activities by functioning as a catalyst. Concerning the characteristics of innovation actors' networks, we find more fundamental changes in the agency of digital innovation, as innovation actors form communities and perform activities collectively. Building on the literature on digital technology and digital innovation, we identify promising avenues for future research. Overall, our literature review contributes by proposing a new conceptual model of innovation actors' social networks in the digital age and providing an agenda for future research.

Information systems development frequently involves value conflicts (e.g., reconciling compliance requirements with user autonomy), thereby requiring developers to engage in moral decision-making regarding what is desirable, right, and just. Drawing on the theory of moral development, this study examines how developers-whose moral reasoning emphasizes self-interest (pre-conventional), maintaining social norms (conventional), or higher-order principles (post-conventional)-navigate these conflicts. We identify varying moral decision-making patterns among developers at the pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional levels, structured around four interrelated themes: (1) problem framing, (2) solution conceptualization, (3) responsibility orientation, and (4) duty fulfillment. Our analysis further indicates the pivotal role of developers' responsibility orientation in guiding moral decision-making. Specifically, this orientation encompasses how developers attribute causal responsibility (e.g., assigning blame) in framing problems, allocate accountability (e.g., taking ownership) in conceptualizing solutions, and balance obligations (e.g., honoring commitments) in fulfilling their duties. Thus, our study shows how distinct responsibility orientations among IS developers at the pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional levels critically shape their navigation of value conflicts, ultimately influencing project outcomes.

Individuals often cycle between using, discontinuing, and resuming Information Systems (IS). Despite recognizing the growing importance of reacquiring ex-users in IS research and practice, factors driving IS use resumption remain underexplored. Addressing this gap, we conducted 29 interviews analyzing 96 resumption cases. Our findings reveal seven recurring characteristics across five resumption patterns, providing a thorough understanding of the nuanced dynamics influenced by diverse contexts, users, and IS. These findings provide a better understanding of IS use resumption and practical insights for organizations seeking to enhance customer numbers, sales, and revenues by tapping into the potential of winning back ex-users.

"Shadow IT"-information technology that is not endorsed by a company's cybersecurity policies-is proliferating. Shadow IT typically arises when employees either create their own IT or use unapproved third-party solutions. While shadow IT may be effective in helping workers tackle various challenges, the unsanctioned nature of shadow IT can also pose significant cybersecurity risks for organizations. This article identifies four archetypal practices for managing cybersecurity and user needs that encourage, or discourage, employees to use shadow IT. From these archetypes, we propose 10 recommendations to help IT leaders deal effectively with shadow IT-by both reducing associated cybersecurity threats and improving the user experience for workers.

Research misconduct remains a controversial topic and the numbers are staggering.Retractionwatch.com 1 reported that, in 2002, 119 papers were retracted by scientific journals.Some 20 years later, this figure has grown to almost 5000.Put differently, about 8 in 10 000 published papers are retracted from the scientific literature today.The case of Francesca Gino at Harvard University is yet another example.At the time of writing this Editorial, she stands accused of fabricating results across multiple studies, including at least one purporting to show how to elicit honest behaviour (Scheiber, 2023).Of course, all this comes at a time when the Information Systems discipline discusses the implications of generative AI in the research process (Davison et al., 2023).Against this backdrop, we note that our discipline has a solid track-record of addressing ethical research conduct, with Davison and Chatterjee ( 2024) describing some concerns we should be aware of in a recent Editorial for the Information Systems Journal.In contrast, the debate pertaining to potential misconduct by editors or reviewers is significantly less developed, with just a few examples aimed at mitigating the shortcomings of the peer review process more generally (including, for example, Iivari, 2016, Petter, 2018, Ralph, 2016).We here acknowledge that the journey towards publication of any manuscript in any journal does not only involve authors who may act unethically, but also editors and reviewers.While the responsibility for fraudulent studies undoubtedly rests with dishonest authors, editors and reviewers alike share the responsibility for allowing such studies to pass through the peer-review process, for a long time seen as the 'gold standard' in preventing such instances from taking place.We therefore firmly believe that the ethical aspects of editorial (mis)conduct should be equally discussed, a task we set out in this Editorial, the second in a series focusing on ethics in IS research in theIn what follows, we outline key areas where we, in our role as authors, reviewers, and editors, have personally observed behaviour and actions of others we deem questionable.We further augmented our own experiences with anecdotal evidence gathered through conversations with colleagues from within the IS discipline who are distributed around the world.The common denominator across all situations that we outline here is that they took place within the realms of a double-blind peer-review process, meaning reviewers are unaware of the authors' identities, and vice versa, yet that is single-blind for senior editors (SEs) and associate editors (AEs) (editors know the authors' identities, but authors do not know the editors' identities).Nevertheless, it is fair to point out that at some journals, SEs are permitted or required to reveal their identities.Ultimately, we do not claim to provide an exhaustive overview, but intend to shed light on this issue, increase awareness, and encourage open discourse.

Recent developments of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) introduce unprecedented opportunities that are believed to enhance individual skills, particularly creativity, while improving team collaboration. Thus, these novel uses of GAI both on the individual and collective level have the potential to augment the innovation process within teams. Nevertheless, little is understood about how teams leverage GAI to enhance the innovation process. Using affordance theory, this study conducts a field study encompassing 18 teams, with 83 participants to understand the use of GAI during the innovation process. Our findings reveal that profoundly enhance the capacities of teams to innovate by generating, improving, automating, and stimulating sophisticated creative tasks. However, the main benefits of GAI appear to be confined to specific tasks rather than enhancing innovation itself. Our study is expected to contribute to research on the use of GAI at the team level, particularly in the innovation context, and advance affordance theory.

Gatekeepers, including prerogative elites and institutions, possess multifaceted tools for controlling information. Historically, these gatekeepers have systematically instrumentalized visual information to shape audience perceptions in alignment with specific agendas. However, the advent of social media platforms has disrupted these power dynamics, empowering audiences through user‐driven visual information exchanges. This has led to visual audience gatekeeping whereby users act as audience gatekeepers by selectively disseminating visual content, thus shaping information diffusion. While this democratisation of gatekeeping holds considerable promise for user empowerment, it also presents risks. These risks stem from the inherently persuasive yet manipulative qualities of visual content, compounded by users' susceptibility to unconscious biases, especially during polarising events. Therefore, we critically investigated visual audience gatekeeping in the context of the Russo–Ukrainian War, specifically focusing on a Reddit subforum devoted to Russia‐related discussions. We find that visual audience gatekeeping operates within a paradigm that reflects the social reality the audience embraces. Audience gatekeepers disseminate visual information both to reproduce and defend an idealised conception of this social reality. Collectively, they produce a visual echo chamber characterised by low information diversity, which, in turn, reinforces and perpetuates the incumbent paradigm. However, heightened social tensions can trigger a paradigm shift and amplify the reproduction and defence processes, increasing the potential for the diffusion of more radical and extreme visual narratives. Based on our findings, we propose a theoretical model of visual audience gatekeeping, which has important implications for research on visuals, gatekeeping and social media platforms.

Blockchain technology is argued to drastically change the way we operate within an organizational context, with decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) representing a first manifestation of this ongoing trend. DAOs are characterized by an online community that builds the organization’s backbone by providing knowledge and human resources in a transparent, virtual manner, as well as the use of blockchain technology to coordinate their endeavor. Nevertheless, current research highlights the conceptual ambiguity of this emerging phenomenon, leading to potential issues for practitioners and researchers. To provide further clarity on the phenomenon, we study DAOs through the perspective of their members with a two-staged approach by combining elements of a netnographic approach and structural topic modeling. Our findings highlight several contextual features surrounding DAOs, such as their members’ underlying beliefs and views, helping to embed DAOs in existing research streams.

Process Virtualization Theory (PVT) proposes a set of requirements and relationships to explain and predict whether or not a knowledge work process can be successfully virtualized. However, at least in remote work, the crisis-driven digital transformation (e.g., during the COVID-19 pandemic) shows that almost all knowledge work processes can be virtualized unexpectedly and immediately. Since the requirements for these processes remain the same and need to be met to continue the processes remotely, an interesting question arises of how information technology (IT) can help to meet these requirements in a crisis-driven digital transformation of knowledge work. To address this question, we conducted 40 semi-structured interviews with a multiple-case approach using a critical realist perspective. Our findings contribute to information systems (IS) research in a twofold way. First, we demonstrate that the crisis-driven digital transformation of knowledge work triggers a revisited perspective on PVT by turning virtualized knowledge work processes into a prerequisite. Second, we show how the IT characteristics of PVT (representation, reach, monitoring capability) help to fulfill knowledge work process requirements in remote work settings and outline two additional IT characteristics (social presence and situation awareness) that positively support the fulfillment.

IS resumption describes ex-users returning to an information system (IS) after quitting it beforehand. IS research has conceptualized, operationalized, and defined this behavior and explained some initial causes for ex-users’ IS resumption, such as nonuse-related dissatisfaction. We aim to complement that understanding by discussing the influence of three theoretical perspectives: reasoned action, experiential responses, and habitual responses. We use those perspectives to develop hypotheses and offer a comprehensive understanding of the causes of IS resumption intention. We chose a quantitative approach to evaluate our research model, conducting an online survey with 190 ex-users of streaming services. Our findings show that subjective norm and attitude influence IS resumption intention, while higher satisfaction with prior usage influences attitude. We contribute to IS research by carving out how the three theoretical perspectives influence ex-users’ IS resumption intention, providing a solid theoretical basis for future studies on IS resumption.

Reforming and innovating how the Information Systems Journal (ISJ) publishes and promotes research has always been a core value of the journal. Therefore, in 2021, we introduced a new submission format with the ISJ Trending Topics Workshop. After 2 years, we are pleased to announce that the first paper from the ISJ Trending Topics Workshop series will be published in the journal. Adam et al. (2023) was submitted to the first workshop issue in June 2021 and will appear in this issue. The ISJ Trending Topics Workshop is an annual paper development workshop (PDW) format held in early to mid-June prior to the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS). We use a hybrid format for the workshop, allowing authors to participate virtually, ensuring inclusivity, and overcoming geographical barriers for those participants who are unable to travel to ECIS. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and related travel restrictions, the workshop was held in a virtual format in 2021 and 2022. This year, we were able to organise the workshop in a hybrid format on 13 June 2023, in Kristiansand with 28 on-site and 20 virtual participants. The PDW encourages scholarship that focuses on high-impact research on emerging trending topics in the IS field, such as inclusive digital initiatives, IS in social and political protests, the impact of generative AI, the ethical use of data, algorithms, and design, social cyberwarfare and cybersecurity, applications of blockchain technology, the role of IS in climate change, and many more. Prior to the workshop, participants whose papers have been accepted for discussion in the workshop receive two additional papers to read and review for their roundtable. During the workshop, participants meet in small groups or virtual breakout rooms where they receive feedback from ISJ Editorial Board members and provide feedback on other participants' papers. The ISJ SEs and AEs facilitate the discussion so that each participant has equal time to receive comments from others in the roundtable. Selection for the ISJ Trending Topics Workshop is competitive. This workshop focuses on trending topics and significant societal issues, packaged in a high-quality, high-impact research paper. To be considered for the workshop, a paper must demonstrate a significant contribution to IS research, with or without data. The following table shows the number of submissions to and the acceptance rate for the workshop. Authors of workshop papers are not obligated to submit their work to the ISJ after the workshop, but it is ISJ's goal that those papers that receive feedback during the workshop will be ready for submission and further consideration for publication in ISJ after the workshop. Although the paper from the 1st edition of the ISJ's Trending Topics Workshop is published in this issue, papers from the 2nd and 3rd editions of the workshop are currently under review and will be published in future issues of the ISJ. In addition to the publication of workshop papers in the journal, there are several other reasons why we are running this workshop. The primary goal of the ISJ Trending Topics Workshop is to foster a collaborative environment where both junior and established scholars can gain first-hand experience in submitting to a top IS journal. By participating in this workshop, early-career researchers in particular will have the unique opportunity to learn how to engage in the reviewing process of a top journal and how to interact with editorial board members. This iterative process increases the chances of a positive outcome after the first round of review and provides authors with valuable insights and suggestions on how to strengthen their research. We also consider the workshop to be the 0.5 review round before a submission enters the regular ISJ review process. Authors receive comprehensive feedback from an SE and AE, enabling them to significantly improve their submissions. This guidance enables participants to refine their manuscripts before entering the regular journal submission process. In addition, the ISJ Trending Topics Workshop plays a critical role in facilitating the dissemination of knowledge related to digital transformation. Given the dynamic nature of technology and its profound impact on society, this workshop provides an exceptional platform to publish and discuss timely content related to trending topics in digital transformation. By bringing together IS researchers from different geographical locations with a wide variety of content and methodologies, we foster a collaborative environment for exploring the implications of technological advances in different areas of the IS field. We are indebted to all ISJ editors who have handled submissions over the past 3 years, participated as roundtable mentors, or served as panellists or keynote speakers during the workshop. The following individuals have participated in at least one edition of the ISJ Trending Topics Workshop. Senior Editors: Antonio Diaz-Andrade, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand Carol Hsu, University of Sydney, Australia Federico Iannacci, University of Sussex, UK Stan Karanasios, University of Queensland, Australia Paul Lowry, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA Petter Nielsen, University of Oslo, Norway Niki Panteli, Royal Holloway, University of London, UK Ravi Patnayakuni, University of Alabama in Huntsville, USA M. N. Ravishankar, Queen's University Belfast, UK Barney Tan, University of New South Wales, Australia Monideepa Tarafdar, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA Angsana Techatassanasoontorn, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand Associate Editors: Abayomi Baiyere, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark Roberta Bernardi, University of Bristol, UK Petros Chamakiotis, ESCP Business School, Spain Christy Cheung, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong Nancy Deng, California State University Dominguez Hills, USA Daniel Fuerstenau, IT University Copenhagen, Denmark Sven Laumer, Friedrich-Alexander University, Germany Marco Marabelli, Bentley University, USA Marjolein van Offenbeek, University of Groningen, Netherlands Niki Panteli, Royal Holloway, University of London, UK Dimitra Petrakaki, University of Sussex, UK Christoph Rosenkranz, University of Cologne, Germany Felix Tan, University of New South Wales, Australia Yenni Tim, University of New South Wales, Australia Manuel Trenz, University of Goettingen, Germany Chong (Alex) Wang, Peking University, China Jingguo Wang, The University of Texas, USA Xiao Xiao, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark Zhongyun (Phil) Zhou, Tongji University, China In their paper, Adam et al. (2023) address gaps in our understanding of the effectiveness of gam(bl)ified monetary reward designs (MRDs), which entice visitors to earn monetary rewards by playing interactive games, compared with their non-gamified counterparts. The study examines the differential effects of these MRDs on user registration and uncovers the underlying psychological processes that drive user engagement. Drawing on cognitive evaluation theory, the research establishes a theoretical model for understanding the intrinsically motivating effects of gamified MRDs on user registrations. The experiments conducted in this study provide compelling evidence for the superiority of gamified MRDs in motivating user registrations compared with non-gamified MRDs. The mere presence of gamified elements significantly increases the likelihood of user registration, highlighting the importance of the interactive and challenging aspects of these designs.

The recent Covid-19 pandemic has led to a sharp increase in online shopping. While the promises of shopping on e-commerce platforms are vast, there are simultaneously novel and exacerbated risks compared to traditional brick-and-mortar retail purchases. Existing research outlines numerous risk dimensions associated with online shopping. In addition, scholars examine the underlying reasons for consumers' risk perceptions, such as the inability of physical quality checks. However, there is a lack of research investigating how consumers attempt to navigate and mitigate risk perceptions when confronted with a high-risk online transaction. To address this research gap, we conducted 18 semi-structured interviews with consumers who had recently performed an online transaction associated with high-risk perceptions. Our study contributes to the existing literature by identifying an affective and cognitive risk mitigation strategy and respective underlying mechanisms. Notably, we find that online social networks play a central role in shaping consumers' risk perceptions.

Agile software development has been shown to alleviate stress and improve satisfaction levels in development teams. Since this development approach relies on strong user involvement, these effects might carry over to the users themselves. If users have a positive perception of the agile approach, they might be more receptive to the produced software. However, users are rarely aware of the underlying development methodology and are, therefore, only partly affected by it. Hence, this study develops a new construct to measure users’ perception of the development methodology and to investigate the effects on technostress and user satisfaction. A survey with 117 beta users was conducted showing that perceiving a development process as agile lowers users’ technostress and elevates their satisfaction levels. Our Results highlight the essential role of user communication in the development phase. We discuss our implications for theory and practice, and conclude with promising future research avenues.