Notes from the Editors: Restructuring the Journal of Operations Management
本文是《运营管理杂志》主编关于期刊重组的说明，介绍了新设的九个部门（如设计科学、医疗运营等）和矩阵式结构，旨在应对投稿量增长并提升审稿质量，对关注该期刊的学者和投稿者具有参考价值。
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 or to are a review only in In their authors may which department would be most in their but this is the the manuscript is to a department, it will be handled by that department either an or is The review The Department Editor has the option of either the manuscript to the review process or to make a to the EIC In of the if the manuscript is the can The more likely for an to the EIC is that the the manuscript should be from further The and serves an important purpose. percent of all manuscripts to JOM are what we consider are either clearly outside JOM's scope or quality. There is no for the EICs to the system by clear to The more are manuscripts where the EIC does not have the to the or about whether or not to it to the review This is where a with can make the about a possible simply a second on a manuscript is the to the manuscript to review, there are two options: regular and first submissions will go through the regular review where the assigns the manuscript to two reviewers. These reviewers submit their reviews within to the who assigns an to the The the manuscript and the two and an to the within In this the the key in the reviews and or The makes the on the and or own of the The can either or the manuscript to the authors for The is to have this within of the the manuscript to the they have to the manuscript and it through the Elsevier system. The manuscript directly to the who has three options: to the to review an review at this or to either or the a review is as a general the manuscript should go to the reviewers as in the There are two kinds of will be located within individual departments, and their is to regular submissions in their But there will be a number of in the structure who have in various theoretical and methodological The can always to weigh in on a with a instance, if the reviews on a manuscript the that with in should look at the the can one of the co-EICs for on which is the best The can the for Editors-in-Chief are in charge of the first process and general editorial policy. make the for and of Department Editors (DE) are the of individual substantive and within their domain. We DEs to be senior scholars who their substantive domains and the methodological and theoretical of OM research. DEs are comparatively Associate Editors are of individual substantive but they are more DEs. is to the reviews in the which is a in the review or not we in a more developmental review process fundamentally on In to substantive may also in the may be in a method or the of the journal, it is important to who the best in a theory or method are. the theoretical or methodological of the manuscript are with may be from time to JOM methodological and theoretical which for in the review the of can be in either the substantive departmental domain or a theoretical or methodological domain. can be either of the or ad hoc we prefer reviewers to the (see the section in the JOM The departmental structure is to be and much like many The EIC term is three years, and from now on this will with all and as well. Therefore, there are no editorial that are Instead, the EICs will invite new DEs and to on the during their tenure. These are on past service of DEs and are to two terms. Further, EICs are to the structure of the departments as they see The purpose of the departmental structure is to structure for the journal for one at a not We do not what the for we want to all for In a editorial on developmental Academy of Management Editor a and in our and understanding of the role of of being the who the the developmental reviewers take a more role that authors their As part of the restructuring we want to promote in the review this we have redesigned the both at the and submit their to the they will as part of their the reviews in terms of and The will similarly the the The used for both and is in Fig. The first metric the overall quality of the the second metric focuses in more on how developmental the review within the journal and all are on on these The As you are about to submit review to the or the take one more look at review and this the authors improve their this the kind of would like to receive on own We need active and scholars to as JOM reviewers. who to get here are some you are interested in a an to the co-EICs, which of the nine departments a and a secondary and which of the could be more in the new structure within domain of expertise. This information is absolutely because we are up Elsevier's system and use the new structure to a new system for both manuscripts and reviewers. you are new to JOM and have not for us before, we also you to at one from a senior OM you have for a is not but we need to which departments and are in domain of get in with who is to review for us will be appointed to our the of the will not be an ad hoc but will have a within the JOM structure. an means that you will to manuscripts for the journal. This is one every three which should not be a you are to each and only to and do not or and We that is and needs to take time but we an to review, we them to be to make time in their in the to a for some you need more the time can be if As as are the reality is that JOM cannot for the such as and In many authors submit to us they go on which means we have a of in submissions during these This is a and we need the entire editorial to We all that is a that does not the kind of as But we all that review will be reviewers will receive at the Academy of Management and we are more to have of to reviewers as they their As co-EICs, we are absolutely to have been to a cast of Department Editors for the new structure, and the of Associate Editors as well. We are that the new structure will be to both the increasing volume and increasing of empirical OM research quality. As we introduce “the new we all past Associate and reviewers for their service and as well as all JOM authors for their With this kind of legacy and of we could not be of being the of the