Notes from the Editors: After the Associate Editor Board Meeting
本文是《运营管理杂志》联合主编在首次副主编会议后的总结，介绍了改进审稿流程、提升作者体验的具体措施，对期刊编辑和审稿人有参考价值。
On April 4th and 5th, we held the first Associate Editor's Board meeting in Tempe, Arizona. We were very pleased to have 20 attendees from different parts of the world. Our goal was to continue to improve the review experience for the authors, reviewers and associate editors. We strongly believe that taking a developmental approach will provide a better experience for our authors and make for a stronger Journal. With that focus in mind, we analyzed our current procedures and discussed how we can make the review process a value-added mechanism for authors rather than simply an impersonal decision-making procedure. While we acknowledge that this recap may read a bit like meeting minutes, we want to communicate the outcomes of the meeting in the most straightforward way possible. The following discussion points provide suggested guidelines for three critical groups to our future success—co-EIC's, Associate Editors, and Reviewers. Thank you for your support and participation in the Journal of Operations Management. As of the end of last year, we had 53 AE's, and this year we added 22 new AE's. Co-EIC's will continue expanding the Associate Editor Board membership. Further expansion will allow each AE to spend more time helping authors develop high quality manuscripts. Reviewers on the Editorial Review Board who write high quality and timely reviews will be promoted to AE. Co-EIC's will host the AE Board meeting annually. We expect all AE's to attend the Board meeting at least once within the next three years. This will help set common expectations among AE's and ensure a shared vision for the Journal. Co-EIC's will continue to give real-time feedback to the Reviewers and AE's when their performance does not meet Journal expectations or when performance exceeds expectations. Our intent is to improve the review experience for all concerned. In other words, we ask Reviewers and AE's to take performance improvement suggestions as developmental opportunities rather than personal criticisms. In recognition of their dedication to the Journal, Co-EIC's will send a letter of appreciation to the Dean of all AE's, as well as the Reviewers chosen as Best Reviewer Award recipients. We recognize the importance of their volunteerism and will publicly acknowledge it whenever possible. The JOM web page will host samples of exemplary articles to promote the high quality research desired by the Journal for potential authors to benchmark. Moving forward, Co-EIC's will post samples of well-written abstracts, well-crafted reviews and AE reports, and empirically-informed analytic modeling papers. AE's typically receive three reviews for each manuscript, and it is their job is to synthesize and integrate these reviewer reports into a cohesive AE report. The purpose of the AE report is to provide clear direction for the authors to follow in further developing their manuscript, whether the decision is to revise or reject. Currently, the Journal receives about 550 submissions annually, with a “desk reject” rate of about 50%. Given this volume, each AE should expect to file 3 to 4 AE reports per year. However, there may be cases when we ask for additional assistance on more manuscripts when an AE has expertise in an emerging, or highly specialized area of research. It is vitally important that the AE's appreciate the strengths and good intentions of every study. The manuscript is written by our colleagues for a reason, and we need to be respectful and mindful of the context in which the study took place. Please take into account where the research lies in the evolution of knowledge within its particular domain. Every manuscript has flaws. The critical question that needs to be considered by AE's is: “Are the flaws substantial enough to cast doubt in the study's findings?” If not, consider how to help the authors improve the manuscript and move it in the direction of a publishable form. If we have to make an error, we would much rather make a Type 1 error than a Type 2 error. In other words, we would prefer to err on the side of accepting a methodologically imperfect, but managerially interesting manuscript that addresses a novel or emerging issue. If the recommendation is to reject, the AE report should delineate clearly why a manuscript is not appropriate for moving further in the review process. At the same time, it should still suggest ways to develop the manuscript for future submission to another publication. We would like our Journal to build a reputation for offering manuscripts a strong developmental guidance, even if rejected. If the recommendation is to revise and resubmit, the AE report should provide a clear roadmap for the development of the manuscript. We recommend the AE report be structured around the following three categories—(1) deal breakers, (2) concerns and (3) other considerations. Deal breakers are critical points that must be successfully resolved by the authors, or the manuscript will be rejected at the next submission. Concerns are moderately important issues that should be thoroughly addressed by the authors. Other considerations are points about loose ends that the authors should think through and consider in their response. The AE Report should articulate clearly if the AE disagrees with any of the reviewer comments so the author(s) know what not to focus on. We think this structure will allow the authors clear prioritization when formulating their revision strategy. When an EIC makes a review request, he has screened the manuscript for fit at JOM. If the Reviewer is unclear about the “fit” issue, he/she should send an e-mail to the EIC that assigned the manuscript. Please do not unilaterally declare “lack of fit” and reject the manuscript. The key evaluation criterion for a manuscript under review is the level of “new knowledge” created by the study. Begin the review by first considering what new information or insights the reader will gain from this manuscript and then decide whether the contribution to knowledge is sufficient for publication. When the Reviewer's opinion is to reject due to an “insufficient contribution,” we need to provide more detailed elaboration to the authors. For instance, offer references to earlier published research which clearly make the current study's contribution marginal. When the Reviewer's opinion is that we should offer the authors an opportunity to revise and resubmit, offer a clear explanation as to why the Reviewer is recommending this manuscript to advance in the review process. This will help the AE contextualize the comments and suggestions when synthesizing with other reviewer feedback. Please avoid stating one critical flaw as a reason for rejection, including a methodological flaw. Keep in mind that all studies and manuscripts have flaws. The questions the Reviewer needs to consider are: how flawed is this manuscript?, how much of these flaws could the authors correct in future revisions?, can we live with the flaws?, and if the flaws are addressed, how might it affect the findings of the study? Our expectation for the time commitment, when reviewing a manuscript, is in the range of half a day to a full day. Based on our experience, anything less than half a day means that the reviewer is not doing justice to the manuscript submitted. Please respect the authors’ efforts and time by giving the manuscript full consideration and focus. Additional details on Reviewer guidelines are posted on our web page at http://wpcarey.asu.edu/research/JOM. The Journal of Operations Management has made great progress, as demonstrated by our growing impact factor, both short-term and long-term. The percentage of JOM articles cited is currently over 95%, which means that almost all articles published in our Journal are deemed useful in future research. The Journal has given all stakeholders many reasons to take pride in JOM and its reputation. However, in the spirit of continuous improvement, we seek to improve the review experience for everyone involved. We, as Co-EIC's, and all of the AE's that attended the Board meeting agree that a positive, developmental review process should become one of the competitive advantages of the Journal. This will be one of the critical facets for our continued growth and will continue to make Journal of Operations Management the premier publication that it has become. Best Regards,