More than many other management disciplines, SCM has been very successful to professionalize and reinvent itself. A good indication for this development are the 2017 JCR journal impact factors, which have just been released. Many, although not all, impact factors of SCM journals have improved. The journal with the highest impact factor among SCM journals and the seventh-highest one among more than 200 management journals is Journal of Supply Chain Management (6.105). Three SCM journals have impact factors between 4 and 5: Journal of Operations Management (4.899), International Journal of Production Economics (4.407) and International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management (4.215). IJPDLM is now even the Emerald journal with the highest impact factor, which is a great achievement! Two other SCM journals range between 3 and 4: Supply Chain Management: An International Journal (3.833) and Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management (3.667), but International Journal of Operations & Production Management (2.955) and Journal of Business Logistics (2.891) also come close to 3. Both International Journal of Logistics Management (1.776) and Decision Sciences (1.641) were able to improve their impact factors and get closer to 2. It might take some time until our journals will finally be acknowledged by qualitative rankings such as CABS’s AJG and VHB-JOURQUAL, as such rankings tend to be quite conservative. However, with such high impact factors there should be no doubt anymore that SCM plays in the same league as accounting, marketing and finance.
The Journal of Business Logistics has a call for papers for a Special Topic Forum on Participating in the Wider Debate on Resilience (PDF). Submissions are due: June 1st, 2019. The editors for this JBL Special Topic Forum are Andreas Wieland (Copenhagen Business School) & Christian F. Durach (ESCP Europe Business School).
The circular economy is gathering momentum: In the future this model could, for example, mean that smartphones will not be sold and consumed anymore, but companies like Apple and Samsung will then keep scarce resources and sell a smartphone service to users instead of a product to consumers. These users will then be required to bring back the phone after a specified amount of time. California Management Review has now published a special issue on the circular economy. Several of the articles of that special issue refer to supply chains and supply chain management; and several of the authors have published in SCM journals before. This indicates that “supply chain thinking” and “circular thinking” are increasingly stimulating each other. I would even go so far to say that the 21st century’s supply chain management has to shift from linear to circular. This also has implications for our research. What we might need to re-think is whether the “chain” in “supply chain management” is still the right expression.
My guest post today comes from Alan McKinnon who for several years has been raising concerns about the academic obsession with journal rankings and low rating of logistics/SCM journals. He has just published a new paper updating his earlier arguments.
In a paper that I wrote five years ago I argued that the development of logistics/supply chain management (SCM) as a discipline was being impaired by the relatively low ranking of specialist journals in this field. I was surprised and heartened by the favourable response I received both from logistics/SCM researchers and academics in other disciplines experiencing a similar problem. I have now returned to the journal ranking debate with a sequel to my original article which reviews recent literature on the subject, analyses new data on the validity of the journal ranking as an indicator of research quality and discusses the recalibration of logistics/SCM journals since 2010/11. The literature challenging the principle, practice and application of journal ranking has been steadily expanding and becoming more critical. Regrettably this is not deterring university managers from basing many recruitment, promotional and resource allocation decisions on the rating of journals. Data generated by the UK government’s assessment of university research (REF) has confirmed that, in the field of business and management, the journal ranking is an unreliable predictor of the quality and impact of an individual journal paper. In this analysis, papers published in lower ranked journals tended to be under-valued, a finding of particular relevance to logistics/SCM journals as they tend to be on the 2nd or 3rd tiers of the major journal lists. Since 2010/11, there has been some overall improvement in the relative standing of these journals, though a couple have been downgraded in the widely-used ABS list. Fortunately the backlash against journal rank “fetishism” has begun with bottom-up campaigns such as DORA and top-down, government-led initiatives in countries such as the UK and Australia aiming to make research assessment fairer, more transparent and more rigorous.
Alan McKinnon is Professor of Logistics in Kühne Logistics University, Hamburg and Professor Emeritus at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh. You can find out more about his research and publications at www.alanmckinnon.co.uk and follow him on Twitter @alancmckinnon.
McKinnon, A.C. (2017). Starry-eyed II: The Logistics Journal Ranking Debate Revisited. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 47 (6). DOI: 10.1108/IJPDLM-02-2017-0097
The Journal of Supply Chain Management has recently announced the winner of the 2015 Harold E. Fearon Best Paper Award, which is the award for the best paper published in that journal. The award goes to an article by Kim & Choi: Deep, Sticky, Transient, and Gracious: An Expanded Buyer–Supplier Relationship Typology. Herein, the authors propose an expanded typology of buyer–supplier relationships, which they theorize in two orthogonal aspects: “(1) relational posture, that is, how two firms regard each other (as cooperative partners or as adversaries) and (2) relational intensity, that is, how much two firms’ operations are interlinked (closely tied or arms-length)”. And these are the two finalists for the 2015 Harold E. Fearon Best Paper Award: Examining Absorptive Capacity in Supply Chains: Linking Responsive Strategy and Firm Performance by Dobrzykowski, Leuschner, Hong & Roh, and When Buyer-Driven Knowledge Transfer Activities Really Work: A Motivation–Opportunity–Ability Perspective by Kim, Hur & Schoenherr. Hopefully, you will enjoy reading these insightful articles as much as I did.
Kim, Y., & Choi, T. (2015). Deep, Sticky, Transient, and Gracious: An Expanded Buyer-Supplier Relationship Typology. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 51 (3), 61-86 DOI: 10.1111/jscm.12081
Dobrzykowski, D., Leuschner, R., Hong, P., & Roh, J. (2015). Examining Absorptive Capacity in Supply Chains: Linking Responsive Strategy and Firm Performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 51 (4), 3-28 DOI: 10.1111/jscm.12085
Kim, H., Hur, D., & Schoenherr, T. (2015). When Buyer-Driven Knowledge Transfer Activities Really Work: A Motivation-Opportunity-Ability Perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 51 (3), 33-60 DOI: 10.1111/jscm.12077
In today’s guest post, Mark Pagell, Brian Fugate and Barbara Flynn highlight what will guide them in their tenure as the new Co-Editors-in-Chief of the Journal of Supply Chain Management.
Being appointed as the co-editors of JSCM is both a great honor and a significant responsibility. The Journal’s mission will remain to be the journal of choice among supply chain scholars across disciplines, by attracting high-quality, high-impact behavioral research focusing on theory building and empirical methodologies. Our changes will be evolutionary not revolutionary and will build on the solid foundations built by the former editors. In our tenure we will be guided by the following: First, JSCM will continue to publish rigorous, empirical research on SCM topics. And this research must contribute to theory, through testing established theoretical foundations or building theory that is unique to the domain. Second, we recognize that methodological best practice is always evolving and situationally specific hence we will not create one-size-fits-all rules that inhibit the development of supply chain knowledge and theory. Third, we have a responsibility to the wider community, especially early career researchers, to continue providing timely and developmental reviews as part of a fair editorial process. JSCM has progressed substantially over the last decade. With your help and guided by the values described above, we hope to continue that progression. For more information please read our recent JSCM editorial.
Mark Pagell holds a Chair in Global Leadership and is a Professor of Sustainable Supply Chain Management at University College Dublin, Ireland. Brian Fugate is the Oren Harris Chair in Transportation, Associate Professor of Supply Chain Management at the University of Arkansas, United States. Barbara Flynn is the Richard M. and Myra Louise Professor of Manufacturing Management at Indiana University, United States.
Pagell, M., Fugate, B., & Flynn, B. (2016). Editorial. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 52 (4), 3-4 DOI: 10.1111/jscm.12128
Note: The following text refers to a previous version of the JCR impact factors. A more recent version are the 2017 JCR impact factors (see there).
Few days ago, Thomson Reuters published the 2015 impact factors of well-known management journals as part of their Journal Citation Reports. Two SCM-related journals have an impact factor of 4 or larger: Journal of Supply Chain Management and Journal of Operations Management. Two other journals have an impact factor between 2.5 and 3: Supply Chain Management: An International Journal and Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management. Journals with an impact factor between 2 and 2.5 are: Journal of Business Logistics, Transportation Research Part E, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. Journals with an impact factor between 1.5 and 2 are: Manufacturing & Service Operations Management and Production and Operations Management. Among the journals with an impact factor between 1 and 1.5 is: Decision Sciences. Journals with an impact factor below 1 are: International Journal of Logistics: Research & Applications, International Journal of Logistics Management and Interfaces. However, keep in mind that journal rankings have a downside and should not be the dominating criteria for judging the value of our research. Financial Times has recently decided to include M&SOM rather than JSCM on the FT journal list which indicates that their list is not reliable at all to make SCM faculty decisions. Qualitative rankings such as VHB-JOURQUAL can be a good supplement to quantitative impact factors.
As every year, Emerald has recently announced the winners of the Emerald Literati Network Awards for Excellence 2016. Several SCM-related articles have been awarded this year: A set of awarded articles falls into the area of sustainability, including articles by Tseng et al., Tachizawa et al., Signori et al., Touboulic & Walker and Jaggernath & Khan. Another area with several awarded articles is humanitarian supply chain management, which includes articles by Santarelli et al., Kabra & Ramesh and Jahre & Fabbe-Costes. Other awarded articles deal with horizontal alliances between logistics service providers (Raue & Wieland), human resource management (Huo et al.), innovation (Shamah & Elssawabi and Bellingkrodt & Wallenburg), negotiation (Thomas et al.), quality management (Mellat-Parast), resilience (Scholten & Schilder), risk management (Chang et al.), slavery (Gold et al.), smart cities (Tachizawa et al.) and theory (Sweeney et al. and Halldórsson et al.). Many of the awarded articles cover interdisciplinary topics. Congratulations to all winners! (See also: Emerald Literati Network Awards for Excellence 2015.)
Introducing the International Journal of Logistics: Research & Applications (Guest Post by the Editor-in-Chief)
In today’s guest post, Andrew Lyons, one of the two new Editors-in-Chief of the International Journal of Logistics: Research & Applications (IJoL) provides an introduction to his journal.
The International Journal of Logistics: Research & Applications (IJoL) publishes original and challenging work that has a clear applicability to the business world. As a result the journal publishes work that is original and academically rigorous that has also demonstrated to have made a positive impact on supply chains or has clear potential to be of significant practical value. High quality contributions are therefore welcomed from both academics and professionals working in the field of logistics and supply chain management. Papers should further our understanding of logistics and supply chain management and make a significant original contribution to knowledge. In this context the term “logistics” is taken in its broadest context as “the management of processes, flow of materials and associated information along the entire supply chain, from raw materials through to the final user of the product”. The journal covers all aspects of logistics and supply chain management. All published research articles in this journal have undergone rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening and anonymous refereeing by independent expert referees.
Professor Andrew Lyons is a Professor of Operations & Supply Chain Management at the University of Liverpool Management School. He is the Director of Studies MSc Operations & Supply Chain Management.
In their new editorial, the editors of the Journal of Operations Management highlight five important issues, “many of which continue to be reasons for rejections in the manuscript review process”. First, “it is time to take causality seriously”. Particularly, authors have to take steps toward correcting for endogeneity or demonstrating exogeneity. Second, “know which rules are worth following”. For example, the yes–no rule that a measure is reliable if Cronbach’s α exceeds 0.7 is no longer recommended. Third, “always understand the tools you use”. Here, authors of PLS-based manuscripts routinely fail to discuss the weaknesses of the estimator. Fourth, “be cautious with claims about common method bias”. Particularly, ex-post techniques (e.g., Harman, 1967) do not have much practical value (see, however, my post about the CFA marker technique). Finally, “stay current on methodological developments”. For example, Baron & Kenny (1986) are widely used, although updated approaches have been published. It seems that the JOM editors no longer send manuscripts to the review process that ignore these issues.
Guide, V., & Ketokivi, M. (2015). Notes from the Editors: Redefining Some Methodological Criteria for the Journal. Journal of Operations Management, 37 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(15)00056-X