Abstract
I am writing to share a number of updates with the audience of Organizational Research Methods (ORM).
Manuscript Submissions
Submissions were up 55% in 2014 compared to 2013. I am unsure as to what factor or factors may have contributed to this large increase. However, I am delighted that the journal continues to be perceived as the first choice for many scholars seeking to publish methods-oriented papers.
The desk rejection rate has leveled off at ∼30%, and the final acceptance rate is ∼15%. Finally, the time to first decision has improved and is now averaging ∼46 days.
Impact and Reputation of ORM
The most recent impact factors, which were made available in July 2015, revealed that ORM’s impact factor increased to 4.15 (this is ∼18% increase over the previous year). This impact factor ranks ORM 10th out of 185 journals in the “Management” category and 5th out of 76 journals in the “Applied Psychology” category. In addition, if ORM were to be listed on the Financial Times Top 45 Journals, this impact factor would place ORM 7th on the list behind only Academy of Management Review, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Finance, MIS Quarterly, and Journal of Applied Psychology.
In addition, the Chartered Association of Business Schools recently published their Review of Academic Journals (2015), wherein journals were evaluated on a scale ranging from 1 (lowest score) to 4 (highest score). I am delighted to report that ORM was evaluated as a 4.
In sum, ORM continues to be an influential journal (at least in terms of impact factor) and a well-regarded journal (at least in terms of external evaluations, such as that by the Chartered Association of Business Schools). The reputation of ORM is due to creative authors sending their best methodological work to the journal as well as the input and counsel provided to those authors by reviewers and editors (as impact and reputation are lagged constructs, I am especially grateful to Jose Cortina and his entire editorial team).
Additional Points of Pride
I would also like to pass along a few additional pieces of good news related to ORM.
Last year, the ORM Best Paper Award was given to Kozlowski, Chao, Grand, Brand, and Kuljanin (2013) for their paper explicating and extending our understanding of emergence in the context of multilevel theory. This paper went on to receive the 2015 William A. Owens Scholarly Achievement Award from the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. So, please join me in congratulating Steve Kozlowski and his colleagues for this wonderful achievement.
In addition, Herman Aguinis and Kyle Bradley delivered an invited plenary address at the 2015 Academy of Management Conference based on their 2014 paper titled “Best Practice Recommendations for Designing and Implementing Experiments Using Vignettes.”
Third, Bob Gephart was announced as the recipient of the 2015 Research Methods Division Distinguished Career Award for his sustained and substantial contributions to qualitative research methods. Bob has made a huge impact on our field, both in terms of his service and his scholarship. Briefly, Bob (a) served in the three-year leadership track for the Research Methods Division, (b) continuously served on the ORM Editorial Board (and since 2008 as an associate editor), and (c) serves on the most prestigious editorial boards in management, including Academy of Management Journal (since 1997) and Academy of Management Review (since 2011). In terms of his scholarship, Bob’s 1978 paper published in Administrative Science Quarterly was one of the first applications of grounded theory in management research; his 1993 paper published in Academy of Management Journal, which explained his approach to analyzing rich text documents, has been republished as a book chapter and cited ∼400 times. Finally, his 1988 book, published by Sage, provided an accessible introduction to ethnostatistics for organizational researchers. Congratulations Bob!
Finally, one of ORM’s current associate editors, John Antonakis, has agreed to serve as the next editor-in-chief at Leadership Quarterly. As many of you know, Leadership Quarterly is the premier outlet for research related to leadership and social influence in the organizational sciences. As such, Leadership Quarterly is regularly regarded as one of the top journals in both Management and Applied Psychology. John’s appointment will formally begin in January of 2017. Congratulations John!
Best Paper Awards
This year, the ORM editorial board identified two papers as being especially deserving of recognition. The runner-up for the Best Paper award goes to David LaHuis and his colleagues for their paper:
LaHuis, D. M., Hartman, M. J., Hakoyama, S., & Clark, P. C. (2014). Explained variance measures for multilevel models. Organizational Research Methods, 17, 433-451.
And, the Best Paper award goes to Dan Newman for his paper:
Newman, D. A. (2014). Missing data: Five practical guidelines. Organizational Research Methods, 17, 372-411.
Congratulations to David (and his coauthors) and Dan for this recognition from the editorial board.
Forthcoming Feature Topics
Papers have been submitted and reviewed for two forthcoming features topics: (a) mixed methods in the organizational sciences and (b) video-based research methods in the organizational sciences. Pending revisions and another round of review, I expect both of these feature topics to appear in print in 2016 or early 2017.
In addition, we are currently soliciting papers for a new feature topic titled “Neuroscience in Organizational Research.” Micah Murray and John Antonakis put together a tremendous proposal for this feature topic, which will span two issues of ORM. The first issue will consist of a set of invited papers (that will still undergo peer review) focused on general issues related to neuroscience. The second issue (see the following link) will consist of competitively reviewed submissions that extend and build off of the knowledge included in the first issue. If you are interested in learning more about this feature topic, I encourage you to read the call for papers (see the following link) and contact Micah or John with any follow-up questions.
Updates to the Editorial Board
Given the increase in the number of submissions and John’s impending move to Leadership Quarterly (along with his commitment to co-editing the feature topic on neuroscience), I decided to expand the team of associate editors. Please join me in welcoming Dan Newman (University of Illinois) as the newest associate editor. Dan’s addition expands both the breadth and depth of expertise in areas, including: missing data analysis, social network analysis, big data analytics, Bayesian analysis, multilevel measurement and analysis, and meta-analysis.
In addition, I am pleased to announce the addition of several new board members: Chahrazad Abdallah (Université du Québec à Montréal), Rich DeJordy (Northeastern University), Dina V. Krasikova (University of Texas at San Antonio), Jane K. Lê (The University of Sydney), Songqi Liu (Georgia State University), and Sang Eun Woo (Purdue University).
Finally, as many of you know, Larry James passed away unexpectedly last August. Larry was a pillar of the research methods community and a staple of the ORM team. Initially, he served as a member of the Editorial Advisory Board to Larry Williams when ORM first emerged on the scene in 1998. And since then, Larry James continuously served as a member of each new editor’s editorial board. Beyond his service to the journal and the field, Larry was acknowledged as one of the world’s leading methodologists. He made seminal contributions in the areas of structural equations modeling and causal inference, mediation and moderation, multilevel measurement, and (most recently) personality theory and measurement. Finally, on a personal note, Larry was my mentor from graduate school, my collaborator and colleague, and my friend. He is sorely missed.
My Gratitude
I would like to thank the hundreds of authors who have entrusted their work to my editorial team. Without creative ideas and well-written papers, we would have nothing to publish.
I would also like to thank my editorial team (both the editors and the board members) for providing such timely and constructive feedback to the authors. Obviously, no one person is able to evaluate the potential contribution of every paper. Fortunately, I have been able to rely on a very talented team of expert editors and reviewers!
I would also like to thank the Research Methods Division of the Academy of Management for its continued support of the journal as well as Cynthia Nalevanko (and her entire team at Sage Publications) for the outstanding administrative, technical, and publishing support.
Finally, I would like to thank my wife (Beth) and my two daughters (Maggie and Grace) for their patience with me as I devote so many hours each week to this labor of love.