The goal of this study is to stimulate a broader and deeper application of scientometric theory in information systems (IS) research, specifically to emphasize the benefits of scientometrics in the conceptual development of the IS field. The study reviews the underlying theories of scientometrics, specifically how they combine both quantitative and qualitative approaches towards research evaluation. Based on the analysis of selected scientometric studies in IS, this study finds significant room for future research in the virtually untouched landscape of scientometric theories.

In the IS field there has been the ongoing debate about a potential identity crisis, which has led researchers to study the output of the community in order to evaluate where IS research currently is and where it could potentially be. This has resulted in various proposals for IS research ‘in practice’. This research follows a different strategy and studies what IS research is claimed to be (the espoused theories of IS). The section of IS journals ’ General Editorials Statements (GES), that is, the informative section offered by most journals where they position themselves with regard to potential authors, already contains the answer. Basing our study on the AISWorld journal ranking,

Information systems (IS) design science research (ISDSR) has received particular attention after the seminal MISQ article by Hevner et al. (2004). Since then, several articles on ISDSR have appeared in top IS journals. This paper examines the development of a common body of knowledge in ISDSR. To this end, a citation analysis in recently published ISDSR articles in top IS journals is conducted. According to Kuhn (1970), a common body of knowledge is important for each emerging scientific discipline. For the purposes of delineating ISDSR from other types of IS research, the author develops three criteria. Based upon these criteria, he identifies 50 ISDSR articles published in the journals of the basket of the six from 2007-2010. An analysis of the citations of these articles reveals that Hevner et al. (2004) is cited as a source in 70 % of all articles. Moreover, six further specific publications are cited by more than 10 % of all articles. The author argues that ISDSR is developing a common body of