Contribution Framing (misq-contribution-framing)

When to trigger

• Results exist (or the artifact is evaluated) but the "so what for IS" is thin
• A Senior Editor or reviewer calls the contribution "incremental" or "a technical exercise"
• Your discussion lists findings without saying what changed in the IS knowledge base
• You need a contribution statement strong enough to justify a 50–65 page slot

State the contribution in the currency of your tradition

MISQ judges contribution within whichever IS tradition the paper occupies. Name what kind of knowledge you produced.

Speak to IS theory and practice

MISQ values managerial, organizational, and societal relevance. After the theory contribution, state implications for managers, designers, platform/policy decisions, or users — and for the societal impact of IT where relevant. A contribution that advances theory but ignores practice (or vice versa) reads as half a MISQ paper.

Justify the length

Because the page limit counts everything and over-length manuscripts are returned, the contribution must be large enough to warrant the category you chose. If the "so what" fits a Research Note, do not pad it into a Research Article. Conversely, a genuine theory advance may belong in Theory Development or a Theory-Generative Research Synthesis.

Write the contribution sentences

Draft, for the intro and the discussion, sentences of the form: "We contribute to [named IS conversation] by showing/designing/identifying [X], which changes [prior understanding/assumption] because [mechanism/evidence]." Avoid "to the best of our knowledge, the first to..." as the whole claim.

Checklist

• The contribution is named in the tradition's currency (mechanism / design principles / effect / process)
• It is tied to the specific IS conversation joined in positioning
• Both theoretical and practical/societal implications are stated
• The contribution justifies the chosen category and page budget
• Explicit contribution sentences appear in both intro and discussion

Anti-patterns

• "First to study X" as the entire contribution (novelty ≠ contribution).
• A design-science paper whose "contribution" is one artifact with no transferable design knowledge.
• A discussion that restates results without saying what changed in IS understanding.
• Over-claiming relevance with no concrete implication for practice or policy.

Contribution pass for MIS Quarterly

Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the IS phenomenon, artifact/platform, theory mechanism, design or empirical warrant, and managerial implication; then test whether the manuscript addresses information-systems reviewers who expect strong IS theory, digital artifact or platform grounding, and evidence with organizational consequence.

• Primary move: Translate the result into who learns what, which mechanism changes, and which rival explanation is ruled out; keep the claim narrower than the evidence.
• Decision ledger: return claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
• Neighbor test: compare against Information Systems Research for quantitative IS, Journal of Management Information Systems for applied systems, Management Science for broader OR/MS; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
• Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.

Output format

【Contribution type】mechanism / design principles / economic effect / process theory
【To which IS conversation】...
【Theory implication】... 【Practice/societal implication】...
【Justifies category/length?】yes / rescope
【Next step】misq-tables-figures or misq-writing-style