Editorial Review Board Members Research Articles

A Descriptive Analysis of Countries Represented by Authors' and Editorial Review Board Members' Institutional Affiliations in the Journal of Music Therapy, 1998-2022.

The Journal of Music Therapy (JMT) authors' and editorial review board members' (ERBM) affiliation locations represent an aspect of diversity through differing cultures and political, healthcare, and educational systems. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the countries of JMT authors' and ERBM's institutional affiliations from 1998 to 2022. We established inclusion and exclusion criteria, operationally defined categories, and built databases. A total of 433 articles met our inclusion criteria. Most articles were published by authors/author teams located in the United States (n = 305; 70.44%) or in a single international country (n = 85; 19.63%), while fewer articles were published by author teams located in multiple international countries (n = 23, 5.31%) or in international countries and the United States (n = 20, 4.62%). Authors were from 21 countries, and there tended to be a slight decline over time in articles by United States authors. When examining the total countries represented, United States authors (n = 330) had the most articles followed by Australia (n = 32), Norway (n = 18), England (n = 14), Israel (n = 13), and Canada, Denmark, and South Korea (all n = 12). There were 632 total JMT ERBM with 470 located within the United States and 162 located internationally. Although all ERBM's affiliations were in the United States in 1998, these data gradually changed. There were more ERBM located internationally than in the United States from 2020 to 2022. Most international ERBM were from Australia, Canada, England, Israel, and Spain. Implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research are provided.

Editorial: Continuing on an Inclusive Path to Scholarly Excellence with Renewed Vigor

Editorial: Continuing on an Inclusive Path to Scholarly Excellence with Renewed Vigor

Trends in geographic and gender balance among authors

Trends in geographic and gender balance among authors

The benefits of publishing in society‐owned scientific journals

The benefits of publishing in society‐owned scientific journals

Editorial Board Memberships: A Report on the Status of the Leading Information Systems Journals

Research journals play a significant role in the generation, dissemination, and sharing of knowledge in an academic discipline. To a great extent, the editorial board members of these research journals manage and control the generation, dissemination, and sharing of knowledge. They also act as policymakers, gatekeepers, and trendsetters. In their latter roles, editorial board members can influence several factors in a discipline; namely, the research topics, the research methods, the research scope, and whose articles are published. The primary goal of this study is to investigate and report on the status of the editorial boards memberships in a set of 14 leading Information Systems (IS) journals. The study does this along the following three main diversity elements namely titles, gender, academic institution, and the geographical location of the editorial boards’ members. The set of 14 journals include the IS basket of 8 journal list. Of the 14 reviewed journals, 7 are domiciled in the US and 7 in Europe. Results reveal a lack of common editorial board classification criteria whereby members of the editorial boards were categorized into different groups and referred to using various titles such as senior editors, associate editors, editorial board members, editorial review board members, and board of editors. Also, the results show that, as of June 2020, the 14 IS journals’ editorial boards had 1214 instances (988 unique occurrences) of editorial board members who came from 44 unique countries. Of those 988 editorial board members, 253 (26%) were females while 736 (74%) were males. In addition, out of the 988 editorial board members, 48% were from US and Canada, 26% were from Europe, and 26% were from the rest of the world. The results also reveal the schools and faculty with the highest number of editorial board memberships. Having a significant number of editorial board members from US and Europe (74%) fits with what Kubota (2019) called epistemological racism; a practice in which the Western world has an upper hand in determining and controlling knowledge and academic practices. Given the roles of the editorial boards in the review process and setting the research agenda for a journal, a more diverse editorial board might publish a more diverse research output. Furthermore, a more diverse editorial board is likely to have a repertoire of internal reviewers who speed up and lower the review process costs, which are challenges inherent in a less diverse editorial board.

Marketing’s role in multi-stakeholder engagement

In 2019 the CEOs of more than 180 of the largest U.S. firms signed a statement of corporate purpose indicating that corporations are responsible for providing economic benefits to all stakeholders, not just shareholders. Although stakeholder theory states that there are several stakeholders (internal and external) whose continuing participation affects a firm’s sustainability and long-term profitability, the marketing literature has focused primarily on customer engagement. This research argues for a broadened focus by marketing scholars and introduces a stakeholder engagement framework based on a triangulation approach including a systematic review of marketing research from a stakeholder perspective, the results of a survey of 254 editorial review board members from top marketing journals, and business case examples. The framework identifies three dimensions of firms’ stakeholder engagement strategies (stakeholder recognition, support, and dialogue) linked to stakeholder responses (stakeholder contribution to the firm or retaliation) that ultimately influence firm performance (financial, reputation, and risk). Two core propositions of multi-stakeholder engagement provide a foundation for a detailed future research agenda for marketing.

Meet the Journal’s Editorial Review Board Members

I am honored to take on the role as Editor-in-Chief (EIC) of the International Journal of Orofacial Myology and Myofunctional Therapy (IJOM).To prepare for my role as EIC, I set two major goals to address today’s quickly evolving publication standards and the expansion and growth of the discipline of orofacial myofunctional disorders. The first was to establish an on-line submission and review process and an on-line archive for all past articles. The second critical goal was to recruit and enlist an international group of highly respected scientists and doctoral-level practitioners who represent diverse topics related to orofacial myofunctional disorders and therapy to serve on the journal’s Editorial Review Board (ERB). I am proud to introduce this new slate of ERB members.

Entrepreneurship in the Future: A Delphi Study of ETP and JBV Editorial Board Members

What will entrepreneurship look like in 2030? We conducted a Delphi panel study asking this question of editors and Editorial Review Board members of the two leading entrepreneurship journals, Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice in an attempt to lift the eyes of the field to the horizon, outside academe, if only briefly. Using thematic coding analysis, we identified close to 1000 first-order codes from the 175 scholars surveyed, which we categorized into 24 distinct themes. From this input in the first round, we generated 93 predictions, which were assessed by the panel in terms of likelihood in a second round. It is our hope that these themes and predictions might serve to inspire our present research, teaching, and entrepreneurial endeavors, and spur debate and discussions among (future) entrepreneurship scholars of future-relevant phenomena that can potentially be studied under the rubric of entrepreneurship.

From the Editor

I hope this issue finds you and your families all safe and well during this pandemic. I am very honored with the appointment to editor of the Business Valuation Review. I would like to thank Ken Pia and the Business Valuation Committee for this opportunity. I would also like to thank Victor Jarosiewicz, Roger Grabowski, and Jay Fishman, all past editors, who have coached me and without whom this issue would not be possible. Thanks to Allyson King as well for continuing as Managing Editor and providing so much support through the last few months. My thanks would not be complete without a proper thank you to the editorial review board members and the reviewers that you see on the inside cover of this journal. Before taking on this role, I did not fully appreciate the extent of the Business Valuation Review's double-blind review process and the detail to which our reviewers vet submitted manuscripts. Our reviewers are some of the best and brightest in the profession and reviews are completed in a thorough and professional manner. Our reviewers provide insightful comments to authors based on their own training, research and experiences and provide the comments and insights that lead to an outstanding final product. This issue continues a much-heated debate over total beta and the size premium. I thank Keith Butler, Roger Grabowski, and Anas Aboulamer for their insightful perspectives on the topics. Also, thanks to Joseph Thompson and David Neuzil who provide a framework for testing terminal values which can lead to significant valuation errors.The last several months have brought us extraordinary change, some good, some bad. My condolences go out to all those who have lost friends or family or have otherwise been affected by Covid-19. The current pandemic has changed so much… I live in New Jersey and performed a management interview on March 16. My children's schools were already closed, and they were being instructed remotely. All NJ bars and restaurants were closed effective 8 pm that evening, and I have not performed an on-site management interview since then. By Monday, March 23, the S&P 500 index dropped to a low, down over 30% from December 31, 2019. Many were under mandatory stay at home orders by the end of March. We saw unemployment spike to its highest levels since the Depression, while many local businesses were shuttered. We have seen a resurgence in the stock market indices, but not all businesses have recovered the same way. Zoom (ticker ZM), which has been an amazing tool throughout this pandemic for meetings, interviews, depositions and trials, has seen its stock price soar over 500%, while local restaurants and gyms in my area remained closed and have just opened for inside services in the last few weeks. The pandemic has clearly affected all businesses, but not the same way.I recently saw a meme that read, “the first rule of 2021 is… you don't talk about 2020,” a reference to the 1999 film Fight Club. It may be nice to forget much of what has happened over the last six months, but regardless of our feelings, Covid-19 has had and is going to continue to have a significant impact on the way businesses operate, and in turn, the way we value them. So many factors will affect our valuations, like capacity limitations, state, local and federal regulations, the Payroll Protection Act and the impact of loan forgiveness, any further economic stimulus, and perhaps the risk of additional waves. Our objective at the Business Valuation Review is to:So much has changed in our world in such a short period of time. Much of this change will affect the way we as a profession work and do our work. I would like to make a call out to all the authors and would-be authors reading this to share their thoughts, theories and industry-specific case studies that may be of interest to us all and would contribute to our body of knowledge as a profession. When I started in this business, I read Shannon Pratt's Valuing a Business and the like, which provided a fantastic framework for valuing any business. However, I found myself turning to the Business Valuation Review when I had a novel type of business or perhaps a special situation where art or experience was required to compensate when science fell short. The current economic environment is full of such areas, and I would love to publish articles in these areas in future issues of the Business Valuation Review. Please enjoy the articles in this issue and consider submitting articles that may contribute to the practice of business valuation.Be well,Kyle Garcia

Literacy for All

Literacy for All

My Reflections on Publishing in Journal of Marketing

My term as the Editor in Chief (EIC) of Journal of Marketing (JM) has thus far been highly rewarding. The full gamut of papers I have processed assures me that JM continues to attract the best and brightest research studies. The strides JM has been making are impressive: the 2014 InCites Journal Citation Reports rank JM as the top journal in marketing, with a total citation count of 14,741 and a journal impact factor of 3.938. This coveted position places the journal in good stead. In this regard, I thank the authors, the previous EICs, the area editors (AEs), the editorial review board (ERB)members, and the ad hoc reviewers for contributing to JM’s success. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that the sheer variety of high-quality articles and their contributions have addedmuch prestige to JM. I am confident that this trend is only going to continue and will take JM to greater heights. In this regard, serving as EIC for JM is an honor and privilege that I truly cherish. As with previous EICs, I am frequently asked two key questions by members of the research community at various conferences and symposia: (1) What type of articles does JM publish? and (2) Why do articles get rejected? I take this opportunity to answer these questions and provide my thoughts on publishing in JM. Then, I reflect on how a review team should evaluate a manuscript. I answer the first question by discussing the type and nature of articles that JM publishes. Specifically, I present the popular domains of study and the classification of articles published in JM and note a few of my observations regarding these subjects, including the balance between rigor and relevance in research. I answer the second question by providing an overview of the review process and highlighting the reasons for rejection. In addition, I also bring to attention some pointers that will be helpful to researchers in navigating the review process. I conclude this editorial by providing a few actionable items that will be helpful to authors in developing significant and relevant articles that will be of greater appeal to the review team at JM. What Type of Articles Does JM Publish? The short answer to this question is that JM articles should have actionable managerial implications. Irrespective of the focal area of the article or the type of methodology used, articles published in JM typically are rigorous and have meaningful, generalizable, and managerially relevant implications. To further elaborate on this answer, I delve into the following three perspectives: (1) the domains of knowledge, (2) the classification of articles in terms of study focus, and (3) the critical nature of rigorous and relevant research. These three aspects, in my opinion, provide a succinct understanding of this frequently asked question.

A Special Thanks to 2014JOSPTContributors

Editor-in-Chief Dr. Guy Simoneau recognizes the authors, associate editors, International Editorial Review Board members, and manuscript and musculoskeletal imaging reviewers who contributed to the various aspects of the Journal over the past 12 months. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2014;44(12):911–913 doi:10.2519/jospt.2014.0117

On Appreciation and Successful Publishing

Every 2 years, three editorial review board members of Journal of Music Teacher Education (JMTE) retire after a 6-year term. As a profession, we owe the following reviewers a huge debt of gratitude: Christian Bernhard, State University of New York– Fredonia; Daryl Kinney, Ohio State University; and Nathan Kruse, Case Western Reserve University (completing an unexpired term). They have rigorously perused, evaluated, and provided wisdom regarding a myriad of manuscripts. Because the manuscript submission rate for JMTE continues to climb, they have evaluated dozens of complex manuscripts. Thank you from all of us. Our profession is better because of your work. Note the names of the current reviewers on the JMTE masthead; we appreciate their continued efforts. For details about the rigorous reviewer-selection process, see “On Gratitude, Service, and Peer Review” (Killian, 2012).

My Plans for Journal of Marketing: An Editor in Chief's Perspective

© 2014, American Marketing Association ISSN: 0022-2429 (print), 1547-7185 (electronic) Journal of Marketing Vol. 78 (July 2014), 1–3 1 Ifeel deeply honored and privileged to have been selected as the Editor in Chief of the Journal of Marketing (JM). I am grateful for the confidence placed in me and will fulfill the responsibility to the best of my ability. This editorship assumes greater significance for me given the excellent trajectory that JM has traversed under the stewardship of a remarkable group of scholars. I thank the prior Editors in Chief, the AEs, the editorial review board (ERB) members, the ad hoc reviewers, and the authors for making JM the premier marketing journal worldwide.

Introduction of the 2014 Editorial Review Board

When we assumed the editorship of Journal of Teacher Education (JTE), we articulated the goal of maintaining a strategic balance among the areas of teacher education practice, policy, and research, bringing those areas to bear on one another in challenging and productive ways. We envisioned a forum for diverse work of national and international teacher education researchers (university and non-university based), teacher education practitioners, and policy makers at all levels. Linking research and practice was--and still is--paramount in our vision for JTE. At the same time, we wanted to improve the quality and coherence of the research base in teacher education and have focused several editorials on topics related to improvement (see issues 63:1, 64:2, and 64:4). We soon realized that this vision required a large team of committed reviewers with a broad range of expertise and interests. Previously, JTE has relied upon a group of excellent ad hoc reviewers who were acknowledged once each year in the last issue of the volume. However, given the vision articulated above, we decided that a stable, core group of reviewers who are acknowledged scholars would better meet the needs of the journal and would provide valued reviewers with the recognition they deserve. We are pleased to announce the members of the JTE Editorial Review Board (ERB) whose names appear on the inside cover of this issue. ERB members have outstanding records of scholarly achievement in teacher education, represent the diverse interests of our readership, exhibit various specialties within teacher education, and have a history of service to JTE. role of the ERB will be to contribute to the quality of the articles published in JTE by providing high-quality reviews. Ad hoc reviewers will still be needed and we will draw from this group to select future ERB members. Through this process, the ERB and the ad hoc reviewers will serve to promote and support inquiry and dissemination of knowledge in teacher education. Highlights of the Current Issue articles that comprise this issue exemplify the vision articulated above. Topics include teacher education impact, reform, and accountability as well as preservice perspectives on English language learners. All have well-developed implications for policy, practice, and research. contexts are varied with focus on international, national, state, and local settings. Quantitative and qualitative methodologies are represented, and, in one article, the quality of a particular methodology is a major focus. first two articles continue themes highlighted in earlier JTE publications involving the impact of teacher preparation programs (See Volume 63, Issues 3 and 5). article by Gary Henry and his colleagues, The Effects of Teacher Entry Portals on Student Achievement extends the study of the relationship between teacher preparation program type and student achievement beyond the dichotomy of traditional versus that has not been particularly fruitful in understanding preparation differences. They augment previous studies published in JTE on the topic (Gansle, Noell, & Burns, 2012; Plecki, Elfers, & Nakamura, 2012) by considering out-of-state teachers in their sample. They classify teachers from a national sample into a number of predominant portals of entry into the profession and estimate the effects of these portals on student gains. Results indicate that teachers prepared in in-state public undergraduate programs generally outperform teachers from out-of-state or alternative programs, even in math and science. exception is Teach for America that, although it constitutes a very small portion of the sample, represents a highly successful portal. Lincove, Osborne, Dillon, and Mills contribute to the conversation launched in our previous theme issue about value-added modeling (63:5) in their article The Politics and Statistics of Value-Added Modeling for Accountability of Teacher Preparation Programs by considering stakeholders' views in analytical decisions. …

A Special Thanks to 2013JOSPTContributors

Editor-in-Chief Dr. Guy Simoneau recognizes the authors, associate editors, International Editorial Review Board members, and manuscript and musculoskeletal imaging reviewers who contributed to the various aspects of the Journal over the past 12 months. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2013;43(12):860–863. doi:10.2519/jospt.2013.0108

Incoming Editorial

Incoming Editorial

A Special Thanks to 2012JOSPTContributors

Editor-in-Chief Dr. Guy Simoneau recognizes the authors, associate editors, International Editorial Review Board members, and manuscript and musculoskeletal imaging reviewers who contributed to the various aspects of the Journal over the past 12 months. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2012;42(12):982–984. doi:10.2519/jospt.2012.0112

Letter from the Editor of the Elementary Science Education Issues of JSTE

Welcome to the November Elementary Science Education (ESE) issue of the Journal of Science Teacher Education (JSTE). Formerly Journal of Elementary Science Education, the journal was officially merged with JSTE in 2010 when I took over as editor. Since that time, ESE has been published as two stand-alone issues yearly (No. 2 and 7), and we have received a steady flow of submissions related to elementary science education (68 in 2011, and 63 already as of October 2012). A special thank you to all the editorial review board members who have worked with us through that transition; the thoughtfulness of their reviews has helped ensure the high quality of manuscripts selected for inclusion in these issues. As we near 2013, we will undergo yet another transition—one that is intended to bring greater coherence to the journal and to establish its niche in science teacher education. The ESE issues will now appear as a regular section on Elementary Science Teacher Education (ESTE). As editor of this section, I believe the transition will allow for a more regular presence of elementary-focused research within each issue, and also help ensure authors’ work appears in a timely manner in print form following acceptance for publication. That said, volume 23 issue seven will be the last stand-alone issue of ESE. The ESTE Section, like JSTE more broadly, will serve as a forum for disseminating high quality research and theoretical position papers concerning the preparation and inservice education of teachers of science. I look forward to receiving manuscripts from our readers that communicate important ideas, theories, research, and field-oriented information related to policy, supervision, curriculum, instruction, and assessment in elementary science teacher education.

Cancer Cytopathology: Double your pleasure in 2013!

In January 2013, we will debut a new monthly format that represents the natural evolution of our journal from 6 issues to 12 issues per year. We will initiate this new schedule with another dynamite issue that highlights what Cancer Cytopathology strives to do with every issue: provide the best of cutting-edge research; highlight new paradigms of practice; and review important concepts, techniques, and diagnoses. Since Cancer Cytopathology launched in 1997, its focus has been to provide rapid and accurate peer review of the best current original research and timely commentaries and review articles. This commitment to our readers has allowed us to gain and maintain our standing as the premier journal in the discipline. Over the last 2 to 3 years, Cancer Cytopathology has continued to experience increased submissions of outstanding articles from acknowledged leaders in the field of cytopathology as well as from new authors, following a tradition of sound scientific research and publication. The success of this competitive selection process is reflected in our impact factor, which has continued to increase (from 2.773 in 2010 to 3.333 in 2011). This increase raises Cancer Cytopathology to the rank of 16 of 78 pathology journals and 65 of 194 oncology journals. To accommodate our authors and readers and to continue maintaining the excellence we strive to achieve with high-quality articles, increasing our frequency from 6 to 12 issues per year was the next logical step in our strategic plan. In addition to increasing the number of original articles we publish, our news and views feature, “CytoSource,” will continue to appear bimonthly in 2013. The increase in pages will also allow us to explore new ideas and concepts emerging in the disciplines of cytopathology and molecular biology and new ways of presenting that content outside the traditional article format. Our journal Web site continues to publish all articles online ahead of print an average of 8.5 weeks after acceptance and thus is the primary source for our latest content as well as online polls, free article access via Cancer Cytopathology Complimentary, “CytoSource,” and our annual newsletters, as well as access to tools for sharing content via e-mail, Facebook, and other social media. Our Web site also connects our readers to content highlights from the other American Cancer Society journals, Cancer and CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. Cancer Cytopathology will continue to focus on content that caters to our readers' need for new, accurate, concise, and accessible information they can trust. Cancer Cytopathology seeks reviewers who are experts and scholars in their discipline and who will be expedient in their critical review of submissions, such that authors will continue to choose us as the preeminent journal to submit their research and reviews. One of the ways we believe Cancer Cytopathology will fulfill the above promise is with a restructuring of our Editorial Board. In addition to our 3 outstanding Associate Editors, we will have a new Editorial Advisory Board as well as a Review Board. As always, all our Editorial Board members represent the most prompt, active, and scholastic of reviewers. From this great group of individuals, we have selected expert reviewers in the fields of cytopathology and molecular biology to comprise the Editorial Advisory Board. These members will not only provide expertise in peer review and adjudication of articles, they will also present their input and feedback to the editors on emerging concepts and changing facets in cytopathology in addition to trends in molecular pathology that we want to communicate to our readership. As always, our Editorial Review Board members are an essential component of the success of the journal. These Board members are committed to providing timely, expert reviews that ensure excellent and current content for our readers. I hope you will share my enthusiasm as we enter this new growth phase for the journal. On behalf of the Associate Editors and the American Cancer Society journals program, I hope you continue to enjoy the various offerings that Cancer Cytopathology brings to you, our readers. We encourage you to visit our Web site, where we will be posting a call for papers in early 2013 for a special issue and highlighting some of the new content format that we hope you will enjoy. As always, we encourage your suggestions and input so that Cancer Cytopathology may continue to bring you the best available research, reviews, and updates in cytopathology!