From the editor

We are pleased to present our special double issue consisting of IS research reports. The genesis for this issue began a few years back when one of our major IS journals made the announcement that they would no longer publish research reports. We saw an opportunity to provide an outlet for those conducting incremental projects. Indeed, not all IS articles need be groundbreaking nor spend extensive journal pages on literature review or detailed theoretical elaboration of a theoretical model already well established in our discipline. Instead, what if the focus were simply on the correctness of the study and presenting new empirical results that are of "interest" to our discipline? As such, a much more concise introduction is all that is required perhaps citing the one or two main papers the report builds upon followed by greater emphasis on methodology and results. Is there a demand out there? We decided to test the waters and commissioned such a special issue as an experiment. Luckily we were able to convince Sue Brown, Helen Kelley, and Andrew Schwarz to take on the role as the guest editors. From our perspective, they did an outstanding job.As a first attempt, we suggested that only laboratory experiments and survey studies be accepted. The call for papers they sent noted that submissions can address any area of research related to IS/IT, but should be incremental in nature. They were not looking for papers that create new theory; rather they were looking for papers that extend existing theory. This issue, in many ways, answered Berthon, Pitt, Weing, and Carr's (ISR, 2002) call for more theory-extension work to further advance the IS discipline where: "An extension study is defined as a duplication of a target study in which one or more key parameters are altered [context, method, and theory]. Thus, certain parameters are held constant and certain parameters are changed between the target and original study" (p. 419).Thus, adding an additional factor into an existing model or testing an established model within a new context was deemed acceptable.As soon as the call for this special issue went out, we received quite a number of inquires. We personally declined more than a dozen since they clearly did not fit the criteria just mentioned. 41 papers were eventually submitted to our guest editors with 15 eventually accepted. Each guest editor took an equal share and eventually accepted 5 each after 2 rounds of reviews. 47 reviewers helped out with this special issue. Interestingly, perhaps demonstrating relative blindness of the review process, two papers submitted by one of us (i.e., Chin) were both rejected during the first round ostensibly for not being incremental enough.This issue begins with a nice reflective introduction provided by our guest editors on why incremental extensions have value in our discipline. Brown, Kelley, and Schwarz note that there are multiple pathways to developing good theory. Clearly one approach is to work on replications and incremental extensions. They go on to highlight the importance for all to make distinctions between the notion of framework versus theory, what constitutes an extension versus replication, and clarifying the role for authors, editors, and reviewers.Of the reports in this issue, one cluster revolves around IT acceptance or usage. Mao and Palvia examined the generalizability of an IT acceptance model in China noticing a more substantive effect of subjective norm possibly reflecting a more collective culture. Fang and Neufeld studied acceptance of centralized computing platform by introducing into the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) two new control factors. Gao and Koufaris introduced 3 potential cognitive constructs that may impact attitudes toward commercial websites: informativeness, entertainment, and irritation. Liu and Ma studied the additional effects of a new construct termed perceived system performance within the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Lee, Lee, and Lee consider the concept of self identity and show how it differs from subjective norm within a TAM model under four conditions: mandatory versus voluntary use and experienced versus inexperienced users. Glassberg, Grover, and Teng reflect on the how attitude conceived as involvement might add new insight to the TAM model.Another set of reports cover other IT behavorial issues. Goles, White, Beebe, Dorantes, and Hewitt demonstrated the role of moral intensity in influencing ethical decision-making within an IS context. Strong, Dishwaw, and Bandy examined the role of computer self efficacy for a task technology fit model (TTF). Their results yielded only a direct as opposed to an interaction effect. Li, Hess, and Valacich extended an IS trust model with two new constructs (i.e., trusting attitude and subjective norm) resulting in greater variance explained. Moores, Chang, and Smith contrasted self-efficacy with metacognition in predicting declarative and procedural knowledge. Thatcher, Liu, Stepina, Goodman, and Treadway studied IT worker turnover with a specific focus on the mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Salisbury, Carte, and Chidambaram study extended the validity of the perceived cohesion scale previously used in small group research to the virtual team context. Limayem presents a group support system (GSS) study where automated facilitation was found equally as effective as human facilitation. Finally, the last two reports look at market level effects. Dow, Hackbarth, Wong used an event history study to examine market reactions to announcements of technology investments and suggests customer value is added through the Net-Enabled Business Innovation Cycle. Guan, Sutton, Chang, and Arnold provide additional insights on the notion of abnormal stock returns associated with the announcements of new CIO positions such as information leakage and potential "whisper circuits."We hope you enjoy this issue. If you feel we should have similar issues in the future, perhaps focusing specifically on or including other methodologies, please don't hesitate to let us know.