Notes from the Editors: Restructuring the Journal of Operations Management

Abstract

As co-Editors-in-Chief, we take pride in how the journal has developed throughout its history. JOM has established itself as a premier outlet for empirical OM research that combines various theories and methods to tackle operational problems. JOM is also well-established as a journal that seeks to take practical relevance seriously; the more recent submissions to the journal are particularly encouraging in this regard. This is the legacy we as co-EICs want to nurture during our tenure. The number of submissions has steadily increased over the years; we will likely get well over 600 submissions this year. Submissions have become increasingly more diverse in terms of theories, methods, and empirical contexts. JOM authors use a wide variety of methods (case research, surveys, econometrics, analytical models, action research, etc.), draw on a broad base of theories (management theory, organization theory, economics, psychology, sociology, etc.) and different contexts (manufacturing, services, sustainable operations, health care, humanitarian relief, etc.) In the face of the constantly increasing scale and broadening scope, we have concluded that the current editorial system where the two Editors-in-Chief are in charge of all manuscripts is simply no longer feasible. The co-EICs’ span of control is prohibitively broad. The best solution to the problem, used not only in many academic journals but also in large corporations, is a departmental structure. This is our plan for JOM as well. The purpose of the redesign is unambiguous: to improve the manuscript review process in a way that promotes developmental reviews and matches each manuscript with the right expertise. The redesign initiative started in February of this year. We asked about a dozen senior OM scholars to weigh in on our restructuring ideas. There was general agreement that a redesign is not an option, it is a necessity. This sentiment was echoed in the Academy of Management meeting in Vancouver. Those of you attending the Academy meeting may recall past Editor Ken Boyer describing the reality of the situation bluntly: “Listen people, this is not an option we are talking about here, this needs to be done.” Ken hit the nail on the head. In contrast with other journals, our aim is to seek integration of the departments by installing a matrix structure (see below) and having active dialog between co-EICs and Department Editors (DE) in particular. The new structure could thus be described as being “decentralized with coordinated controls” (incidentally, this has been the guiding principle at companies such as General Motors for decades). We as EICs will continue to run the journal, period. But with the new structure, we can spend more time actually running the journal, talking to our DEs and Associate Editors (AE), and further developing editorial policy. In the current structure we spend 95 percent of our time reading manuscripts, which land on our desks at the rate of roughly two manuscripts each working day of the year. There are no “slots” for which departments compete. We live in a digital world, and are not constrained in terms of how many pages or articles we can publish. As long as manuscript quality is intact, each department can publish as much as they want. We have our publisher Elsevier's full support on this. Therefore, there is no competition between departments, which we believe will further foster cross-departmental collaboration. Further, we as co-EICs see no need to rank the departments in terms of research quality. The only relevant quality metric is the quality of the review process of an individual manuscript—everything else is either secondary or irrelevant. We have taken stock all the concerns about the new structure, and will closely monitor how the new structure functions, and what some possible unintended and undesirable consequences of the redesign are. The new structure is by no means cast in stone, it can be fine-tuned and redesigned as we gain experience of how it functions. Design science Healthcare Humanitarian operations Inter-organizational relationships Marketing & retail Operational systems Strategy and organization Sustainable operations Technology management We discuss these in the following. With each department, we also list one extant contribution which in our view aptly illustrates the kind of research that falls within the department's domain. The newly appointed Department Editors are working on mission statements for their own departments, in which they go into more details on their vision of their department. We will publish these mission statements along with inaugural essays written by the editors of each department. These will give you a good idea of what kind of research falls within the scope of each department. The purpose of this editorial is to introduce the structure at a general level. The overall structure is depicted in Fig. 1. The JOM matrix. The new structure consists of nine departments that organize around what we consider to be the key substantive domains of OM research. The departments establish and structure the relevance (cf. rigor) of our endeavors. Department Editor: Joan Ernst van Aken (Eindhoven University, emeritus) The collective identity of the OM community is that we are a problem-solving discipline. We want to explicitly promote that in the departmental structure, and this makes us the first academic journal to elevate design science (problem-solving) research to the editorial agenda. Design science is not merely a methodology, it is a way of engaging the phenomenon by the researcher taking on the role of a problem-solver. Exemplary contribution: Trovinger and Bohn (2005). Department Editor: Anita Tucker (Brandeis University) Healthcare has been a prominent topic in OM research for over 20 years, and the value of an OM approach to healthcare issues is indisputable. We want to promote this in the departmental structure, and convey both to JOM readers and broader stakeholders that OM researchers are explicitly interested in the well-being of people. Exemplary contribution: Tucker (2004). Department Editor: Luk Van Wassenhove (INSEAD) Humanitarian operations are similarly interested in well-being, but typically in environments that are fundamentally different from the healthcare environments. Disaster relief operations, for instance, are beset with uncertainty, ambiguity, and require setting up operations in an ad hoc manner in settings where many key institutions are non-existent. While the focus is on human wellbeing, the operational challenge is fundamentally different than, say, in conventional hospital operations. We feel humanitarian issues should be elevated to the departmental structure. Exemplary contribution: Pedraza Martinez et al. (2011). Department Editors: Fabrizio Salvador (IE Business School) and Sriram Narayanan (Michigan State University) We want a department dedicated to inter-organizational operational issues. This will be one of the departments that likely gets a comparatively larger number of submissions, which is why two DEs have been appointed. Issues included are procurement, delivery, supply chain management, outsourcing, cooperation, and inter-organizational integration. Because the focus is on operations that span multiple, legally and organizationally independent organizations, some of the key issues in this department link to cooperation, trust, appropriation, negotiation, and contracts. Exemplary contribution: Swink et al. (2007). Department Editors: co-EICs will operate as interim DEs We want a department that focuses on the part of the value chain that is located “downstream,” close to the customer. Many of the upstream supply chain issues are covered in the inter-organizational relationships Department, but we feel it is important to have a department dedicated to topics such as customer relationship management, the operations-marketing interface, vendor-managed inventories, consumer issues, product and service delivery, “the last mile problem” et cetera. Exemplary contribution: Soteriou and Chase (1998). Department Editor: Suzanne de Treville (University of Lausanne) This is “the classic OM” that covers fundamental issues in manufacturing and service operations. Topics included here are production management, inventory management, lean, agile, quality, theory of constraints, et cetera. These continue to be fundamental issues and topics, and we want to ensure they receive attention in the OM research community as well. The world is changing, and we absolutely need to revisit even the most basic issues in rigorous research to see how our understanding should be updated and revised. Exemplary contribution: Shah and Ward (2003). Department Editors: co-EICs will operate as interim DEs This “sister department” of the inter-organizational relationships focuses on intra-organizational issues, such as differentiation and integration within the firm. In contrast with inter-organizational relationships, this department links to conventional managerial issues such as bureaucracy, coordination, planning and control. We feel it is important to make a clear distinction between intra- and inter-organizational issues. This department also focuses on the strategic implications of operations. This department would focus on research that links directly to how firms seek to compete. Topics would thus include operations strategy (although we prefer Skinner's term “operations in the corporate strategy”), competitive advantage (rents), market positioning, barriers to entry, and other topics that link directly to how firms compete with their operations. Exemplary contribution: Adler et al. (1999). Department Editor: Robert Klassen (Western University, Ontario) We want to promote JOM as a journal that takes social responsibility seriously. Many environmental issues link directly to operational issues. Topics included in this department's domain are closed-loop supply chains, waste management, remanufacturing, stakeholder management, and corporate social responsibility issues that link directly to operations. Exemplary contribution: Parmigiani et al. (2011). Department Editors: Kingshuk K. Sinha (University of Minnesota) and Gregory Heim (Texas A&M) This department focuses on technology in its various forms: information systems, product and process development, life cycle topics, and general technology management issues. The important aspect of technology management within JOM's aims and scope is that it links to questions about how operations are managed. This of course applies to all other departments as well. This is another department that likely gets a comparatively larger number of submissions, which is why two DEs have been appointed. Exemplary contributions: Hendricks et al. (2007), Verma and Sinha (2002). The departmental structure defines only the scope of the journal. The scale of activities within each department is not something that can or should be pre-planned, it depends fully on what kinds of submissions we get and what prospective JOM authors are working on. Without doubt, some of the departments will likely have a larger scale, because they are more prevalent and established. More established and prevalent departments (Inter-Organizational Relationships and Technology Management) will be run by two DEs. Others are more “emerging” departments (e.g., Design science) and will likely get fewer submissions. As co-EICs, we draw no conclusions about relative importance of departments by the volume they get. However, if a department consistently attracts few manuscripts, we may think about whether we want to continue having the department or not, perhaps combining it with another department. The key objective is that every part of the new design serves a purpose. Second, we do not make a distinction between manufacturing and services in the departmental structure. Instead, the distinction implicitly pervades the entire structure. We feel the distinction manufacturing versus services is both contrived and an oversimplification. Similarly, supply chain management does not appear as a distinct department, instead, SCM research will probably be found in several departments. In general, we feel that the notion of “supply chain management” is contrived. Why focus on supply, where is demand? Further, supply chains are irrelevant to most professional service firms, yet, the operational challenges of consulting firms, engineering firms, insurance companies, and investment banks are clearly in JOM's domain. Finally, we do not promote any individual methods or theories, the focus in the departmental structure is on substantive issues. We want to explicitly discourage JOM authors to think of their research in primarily methodological or theoretical terms. Instead, we hope you always focus on substance first, theory and method second. This is the only way to research that is relevant to practitioners, which is an explicit aim of the journal. Big data and business analytics Case research (not synonymous with qualitative research, see #8) Econometrics (e.g., regression analysis, panel data econometrics, time series econometrics) Experimental and quasi-experimental research Extreme-value analysis (e.g., Data Envelopment Analysis) Mathematical and stochastic modeling Philosophy of science Qualitative research (e.g., interpretive research approaches such as ethnography and anthropology) Structural equation modeling (including factor analysis and path analysis) Theory, economic (e.g., microeconomics, industrial organization economics, organization economics, economic policy) Theory, micro-organization (e.g., organization behavior, psychology, social psychology, decision-making, behavioral theory) Theory, macro-organization (e.g., institutional theory, organization design, structural contingency theory, social theories) There are two kinds of special topics that will be managed outside the departmental structure. One of them is special issues, which will be handled by the co-EICs. However, unlike in the past, guest editors to special issues will have access to the Elsevier system and use it to find reviewers for submissions. The second special topic is the JOM Forum, which is also managed by the co-EICs. Every now and then, we want to invite experienced scholars to take a broader look at the field, take stock of what we have achieved as a discipline, and discuss emerging topics. Unfortunately, sometimes the regular peer review process stifles innovative ideas and demands evidence that simply cannot be there yet. In designing the JOM Forum, we were inspired by the new Academy of Management Discoveries journal and the Exemplary Contributions section of the Academy of Management Learning & Education journal. Papers invited to the JOM Forum will go through a double-blind peer review, but this process is handled by the co-EICs, who will invite senior OM scholars as reviewers. We firmly believe that having the JOM Forum will increase the visibility of the journal. A flowchart of the review process is depicted in Fig. 2. Just like before, authors submit their manuscript through the Elsevier submission system. The first person to see the manuscript is the Managing Editor (Jamie Sanchagrin), who assigns the manuscript to one of the EICs. The EIC has three options: (1) to assign the manuscript to a Department Editor; (2) to desk reject; or (3) to accept (manuscripts are accepted without a review only in highly unusual circumstances). In their cover letter, authors may suggest which department would be most suitable in their view, but this is ultimately the EIC's decision. Once the manuscript is assigned to a department, it will be handled by that department until either an accept or reject decision is made. The review process. The Department Editor has the option of either sending the manuscript to the review process or proceeding to make a recommendation to the EIC without review. In case of the latter, if the manuscript is exceptional, the DE can recommend acceptance without review. The more likely scenario for an immediate recommendation to the EIC is that the DE concludes the manuscript should be rejected from further consideration. The two-step desk rejection procedure (EIC and DE) serves an important purpose. About 30 percent of all manuscripts submitted to JOM are what we consider “clear desk rejects”—they are either clearly outside JOM's scope or very low quality. There is no reason for the EICs to burden the system by assigning clear desk rejects to DE evaluation. The more difficult decisions are manuscripts where the EIC does not have the expertise to evaluate the manuscript, or feels ambivalent about whether or not to send it to the review process. This is where a DE with topical expertise can help make the right, informed decision about a possible desk reject. Often, simply getting a second opinion on a manuscript is useful. If the DE decides to send the manuscript out to review, there are two options: regular and expedited review. All first submissions will go through the regular review process, where the DE assigns the manuscript to two reviewers. These reviewers submit their reviews within 30 days to the DE, who then assigns an AE to handle the manuscript. The AE evaluates the manuscript and the two reviewer reports and submits an AE Report to the DE within 30 days. In this AE Report, the AE summarizes the key points made in the reviews and recommends acceptance, revision, or rejection. The DE makes the decision based on the AE Report and his or her own evaluation of the manuscript. The DE can either recommend rejection/acceptance or send the manuscript back to the authors for revision. The goal is to have this decision made within 90 days of the original submission. If the manuscript goes back to the authors, they have 90 days to revise the manuscript and resubmit it through the Elsevier system. The revised manuscript goes directly to the DE, who has again three options: to send the paper out to review (preferably an expedited review at this point), or to recommend either acceptance or rejection. If the DE deems a review is necessary, as a general rule, the manuscript should go back to the same reviewers and/or AE as in the previous round. There are two kinds of AEs. Most AEs will be located within individual departments, and their task is to handle regular submissions in their entirety. But there will be a number of AEs in the horizontal structure who have specialized expertise in various theoretical and methodological domains. The DE can always ask horizontal AEs to weigh in on a specific issue associated with a manuscript. For instance, if upon receiving the reviews on a manuscript the DE feels that someone with expertise in panel-data econometrics should look at the manuscript, the DE can contact one of the co-EICs for suggestions on which horizontal AE is the best expert. The DE can then contact the horizontal AE for assistance. Editors-in-Chief (EIC) are in charge of the first desk-rejection process and general editorial policy. They make the final decisions for acceptance and rejection of manuscripts. Department Editors (DE) are the experts of individual substantive domains, and handle assignments within their domain. We expect DEs to be senior scholars who understand their substantive domains thoroughly and appreciate the methodological and theoretical diversity of OM research. DEs are comparatively generalists. Associate Editors (AE) are experts of individual substantive domains, but they are more specialized than DEs. Their unique task is to summarize the reviews in the AE report, which is a crucial step in the review process. Whether or not we succeed in moving toward a more developmental review process hinges fundamentally on AEs. In addition to substantive domains, AE expertise may also reside in the horizontals. An AE may be expert in a specific method or theory. For the development of the journal, it is important to know who the best experts in a given theory or method are. To the extent theoretical or methodological aspects of the manuscript are central, AEs with “horizontal expertise” may be called upon. Also, from time to time, JOM publishes methodological and theoretical notes, which calls for horizontal expertise in the review process. Reviewers perform the grassroots evaluation of manuscripts. They can be experts in either the substantive departmental domain or a theoretical or methodological domain. Reviewers can be either members of the Editorial Review Board or ad hoc reviewers, although we prefer appointing reviewers to the ERB (see the section “Interested in joining the JOM team?” below). The departmental structure is meant to be flexible and reconfigurable, much like many contemporary organizational structures. The EIC term is three years, and from now on this will coincide with all DE and AE appointments as well. Therefore, there are no editorial positions that are automatically renewed. Instead, the incoming EICs will invite new DEs and AEs to serve on the board during their tenure. These invitations are based on past service performance. Tenure of EICs, DEs and AEs are limited to two three-year terms. Further, incoming EICs are free to modify the structure of the departments as they see fit. The purpose of the departmental structure is to provide structure for the journal for one three-year period at a time, not indefinitely. We do not know what the future holds for JOM, therefore, we want to keep all options open for future restructuring. In a wonderful editorial on developmental reviewing, Academy of Management Review Editor Belle Rose Ragins (2015, p. 3) wrote: “Developmental reviewing requires a conscious and deliberate shift in our expectations and understanding of the role of reviewer. Instead of being the critical gatekeeper who prosecutes the paper (and the author), developmental reviewers take a more collegial role that helps authors develop their work.” As part of the restructuring effort, we want to promote collegial dialogue in the review process. To this end, we have redesigned the evaluation procedure both at the AE and reviewer levels. When AEs submit their recommendations to the DE, they will evaluate as part of their report the original reviews in terms of content and style. The DE will similarly evaluate the AE report using the same criteria. The evaluation scorecard, used for both reviewer and AE performance evaluation is shown in Fig. 3.1 The first metric gauges the overall quality of the evaluation; the second metric focuses in more detail on how developmental the review was. All promotion decisions within the journal and all reviewer/AE awards are based on performance on these metrics. The Evaluation Scorecard. As you are about to submit your next review to the AE or the DE, please take one more look at your review and ask: Will this help the authors improve their work? Is this the kind of report I would like to receive on my own manuscript? We need active and committed scholars to serve as JOM reviewers. For those who wish to get involved, here are some instructions. If you are interested in becoming a reviewer, send an e-mail to the co-EICs, indicating which of the nine departments (perhaps a primary and a secondary department) and which of the twelve competences (again, could be more than one) in the new structure fall within your domain of expertise. This information is absolutely crucial, because we are giving up Elsevier's old classification system and use the new structure to create a new classification system for both manuscripts and reviewers. If you are new to JOM and have not reviewed for us before, we also ask you to provide at least one recommendation from a senior OM scholar. If you have already reviewed for us, a recommendation is not needed, but we still need to know which departments and competences are in your domain of expertise, so please, get in touch with us. Everyone who is willing to review for us will be appointed to our Editorial Review Board until the end of 2017 when the EIC's tenure ends. You will therefore not be just an ad hoc reviewer, but will have a formal position within the JOM structure. Becoming an ERB member means that you will commit to reviewing four manuscripts per year for the journal. This is one every three months, which should not be a burden. By default, you are expected to accept each assignment and decline only due to unusual and unexpected circumstances—we do not regard busy teaching schedules or vacations unusual and unexpected. We understand that everyone is busy and needs to take time off, but when we call upon an ERB member to review, we expect them to be willing to make time in their calendars, in the next 30 days, to complete a review. If for some reason you need more than 30 days, let the DE know, extra time can usually be arranged if needed. As far as vacations are concerned, the reality is that JOM cannot shut down for the typical vacation months, such as July and August. In fact, many authors submit to us just before they go on vacation, which means we have a peak of sorts in submissions during these months. This is a dilemma, and we need the entire editorial team's help to address it. We all know that reviewing is a behind-the-scenes activity that does not enjoy the kind of formal recognition as authoring does. But we promise all ERB members that committed review work will be recognized. Best reviewers will receive awards at the Academy of Management annual meeting, and we are more than happy to write—and already have written—Letters of Recognition to outstanding reviewers as they put their tenure packages together. As co-EICs, we are absolutely thrilled to have been able to assemble a stellar cast of Department Editors for the new structure, and the team of Associate Editors looks very impressive as well. We are convinced that the new structure will be able to accommodate both the increasing volume and increasing diversity of empirical OM research without compromising quality. As we introduce “the new JOM”, we sincerely thank all past Editors, Associate Editors, and reviewers for their service and support, as well as all JOM authors for their scholarly contributions. With this kind of legacy and group of scholars, we could not be prouder of being the stewards of the journal!