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
Introducing the Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management (Guest Post by the Co-Editors)
In today’s guest post, Nezih Altay and Ira Haavisto, the new Co-Editors of the Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management (JHLSCM) provide an introduction to their journal.
We are very excited and motivated about the task given to us and humbled by the trust of our friends and colleagues. JHLSCM promotes the exchange of knowledge, experience and new ideas between researchers and practitioners and encourages a multi-disciplinary and cross-functional approach to the resolution of problems and exploitations of opportunities within humanitarian supply chains. Our vision for the journal is for it to be the premier publication choice for humanitarian logistics researchers and a leading knowledge resource for practitioners. We hope to accomplish this by increasing the number of issues and expanding the scope of the journal to include research on not just post-disaster relief but all kinds of humanitarian operations, hereby continuing to emphasize evidence-based research without limiting our researchers in their methodological choices. We plan to not only expand the editorial advisory board but also engage them in the process of taking JHLSCM to the next level. Our EAB members will not just review papers but counsel authors to help them build their papers and by continuing to push for better quality. In addition to academic rigor, “quality” for us also includes dimensions like readability, timeliness, and validity. Papers published in JHLSCM should be readable and understandable by non-academics as well. They should focus on contemporary topics and solve real problems.
Dr. Ira Haavisto is the Director of the HUMLOG Institute at the Hanken School of Economics in Finland. Dr. Nezih Altay is an Associate Professor at the Driehaus College of Business of DePaul University in the United States.
Some time ago, the winners of the annual Emerald Literati Network Awards for Excellence 2015 have been presented. Here comes a selection of this year’s outstanding papers related to supply chain management: First of all, it is noteworthy that several award-winning papers deal with sustainability; this includes papers written by Eng-Larsson & Norrman, Fabbe-Costes et al., Griffin et al., Schaltegger & Burritt and Varsei et al.. But also other topics have been awarded several times, namely risk/resilience (Vilko et al. and Scholten et al.), logistics integration (Alam et al. and Mellat-Parast & Spillan) and supply chain strategy (Sharma & Bhat and Nag et al.). It is also interesting to see several multidisciplinary articles in this list, hereby linking supply chain management with areas such as human resources (Hohenstein et al.), marketing (Flint et al.) and strategic sourcing (Eltantawy et al.). Congratulations to all winners! (See also: Emerald Literati Network Awards for Excellence 2014.)
I am very happy to present the 2014 NOFOMA Special Issue, which I have recently co-edited for the International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. It contains some of the best research that has been presented at the 26th NOFOMA Conference, which took place at Copenhagen Business School last year. First, the article by da Mota Pedrosa et al. (2015) is titled Logistics Innovation Development: A Micro-level Perspective; it investigates the micro-foundations of customer knowledge acquisition during logistics innovation development. Second, Gammelgaard’s (2015) article, The Emergence of City Logistics: The Case of Copenhagen’s Citylogistik-kbh, provides a better understanding of the organizational change processes in city logistics projects. Third, in the article about Humanitarian Logistics: The Role of Logistics Service Providers by Vega & Roussat (2015), a new perspective to humanitarian logistics research is brought to us. Finally, Bhakoo et al. (2015), whose research deals with Supply Chain Structures Shaping Portfolio of Technologies, explore impact of integration through the “dual arcs” framework.
da Mota Pedrosa, A., Blazevic, V., & Jasmand, C. (2015). Logistics Innovation Development: A Micro-level Perspective. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 45 (4), 313-332 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-12-2014-0289
Gammelgaard, B. (2015). The Emergence of City Logistics: The Case of Copenhagen’s Citylogistik-kbh. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 45 (4), 333-351 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-12-2014-0291
Vega, D., & Roussat, C. (2015). Humanitarian Logistics: The Role of Logistics Service Providers. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 45 (4), 352-375 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-12-2014-0309
Bhakoo, V., Singh, P., & Chia, A. (2015). Supply Chain Structures Shaping Portfolio of Technologies: Exploring the Impact of Integration through the “Dual Arcs” Framework. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 45 (4), 376-399 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-12-2014-0298
The German Academic Association for Business Research (VHB) has published JOURQUAL 3, a journal ranking based on the ratings of more than 1,100 VHB members. A-graded SCM journals are: Production and Operations Management and Journal of Operations Management. Several SCM journals received the grade B, including: International Journal of Production Economics, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Journal of Business Logistics, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management and Supply Chain Management: An International Journal. Finally, International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, International Journal of Logistics Management and Logistics Research received the grade C. No SCM journal received the best (A+) or the worst grade (D). Qualitative rankings such as this list or the ABS ranking can be a good supplement to quantitative rankings based on impact factors. Always keep in mind that journal rankings have a downside and should not be the dominating criteria for judging the value of our research.
Note: The following blog post is about an older version of the Academic Journal Guide (“ABS list”). The 2018 AJG is discussed in another blog post (follow this link).
The UK-based Association of Business Schools (ABS) has published its Academic Journal Guide. It is the successor of the often criticized Academic Journal Quality Guide. And this is how the new Guide ranks supply chain management journals: The only grade 4* (“excellent”) journal is: Journal of Operations Management. Other “top journals” (grade 4) are: International Journal of Operations & Production Management and Production and Operations Management. Examples of “highly regarded” journals (grade 3) in the list are: Journal of Supply Chain Management and Supply Chain Management: An International Journal. Some other “well regarded” journals (grade 2) are: International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Journal of Business Logistics and Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management.
Given the low grades of some journals with high impact factors and considering their reputation in our field, I am not convinced of the quality of this new ABS list. For example, in spite of its reputation as a leading SCM journal and its higher impact factor, ABS ranks JBL two (!) grades lower than IJOPM. Another ranking, VHB-JOURQUAL, seems to reflect the theoretical and methodological breadth of our discipline much better – maybe because it is based on the opinions of several hundred business researchers rather than an expert panel like in the case of ABS. However, qualitative rankings like ABS and JOURQUAL can be a good supplement to quantitative rankings based on impact factors.
But always keep in mind that journal rankings have a downside and should not be used as criteria for judging a researcher (they can only be used for judging a journal, in fact). I fear that the new ABS ranking will serve as exactly such a criterion in many business schools now. Isn’t the quality of our own articles a much better criterion than the average quality of all articles published in a journal (including the very bad and very good ones)? But this would require the members of an appointment committee to read what the candidates have actually published – maybe too much of an effort? And, if paradigm shifts often start in low-ranked journals, should our incentive system really prevent us from publishing in journals with ABS ranks below 3?
In my recent post, I wrote that the CSCMP’s Educators’ Conference is a forum to catch the latest news from our field. This year, among these news was the announcement of the new Editors-in-Chief for the Journal of Business Logistics. In this guest post, Carl Marcus Wallenburg, one of the European Editors of the journal, provides additional information.
At this year’s CSCMP’s Educators’ Conference the new incoming Editors-in-Chief of the Journal of Business Logistics (JBL) were announced. Starting January 2016, Walter Zinn and Thomas Goldsby, both Professors at The Ohio State University (OSU), will be in charge of this premier supply chain journal. Before that the two will work closely with the current editors Matthew Waller (University of Arkansas) and Stan Fawcett (Weber State University) to facilitate a smooth transition to the new editorial team. I will continue to support the journal and new editors in my function as European Editor. One cornerstone of our European activities is the European Research Seminar (ERS) which I co-chair together with Britta Gammelgaard from Copenhagen Business School, who also serves as European Editor. Next year’s ERS will be held in Copenhagen on April 23 and 24, 2015.
Carl Marcus Wallenburg is a chaired professor at WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management, where he serves as Director of the Kühne-Institute for Logistics Management.
Every year, Emerald asks the editorial teams of several of its journals to nominate an Outstanding Paper and one or more Highly Commended Papers. This year’s winners have now been announced. These selections form part of the Emerald Literati Network Awards for Excellence 2014. Awarded papers related to supply chain management are, for example, about logistics strategy and logistics integration (authors: Spillan et al.), supplier choice criteria (Voss), ocean shipping (Harrison and Fichtinger) and SME supply chain portfolios (Tokman et al.) [all published in IJLM], sustainability (Winter and Knemeyer), supply chain resilience (Wieland and Wallenburg), supply chain counterproductive work behaviors (Thornton et al.) and supply chain integration (Jin et al.) [IJPDLM], and pre-positioning commodities (Bemley et al.) and services operations management (Heaslip) [JHLSCM]. The winning articles are now freely available until the end of May, 2014. (See also: Emerald Literati Network Awards for Excellence 2013.)
As I have highlighted in a recent post (Interesting × Important = Impact), research needs to be impactful. But how can research impact be measured? IJPDLM has now published an article by Rao, Iyengar and Goldsby that answers exactly this question: On the Measurement and Benchmarking of Research Impact among Active Logistics Scholars. The authors compare “several commonly used measures of research impact to identify one that best normalizes for the effect of career stage”. One of these measures is the h-index. However, early career researchers are put at a relative disadvantage, as the h-index can only rise with time. This has led to the h-rate, which divides the h-index by the academic age of the scholar. Based on bibliometric data, the authors find that “[t]he h-rate provides the most appropriate basis for comparing research impact across logistics scholars of various career stages” and they provide benchmark h-rates for scholars to identify their research impact.