Abstract
With this first issue of Volume 11 of Human Resource Development Review, we begin a year of transitions. First, we welcome a new editorial team. Second, we inaugurate the use of SAGETrack, an automated manuscript management system. I want to take this opportunity in my first editorial as the new editor of HRDR to share with the journal audience about these transitions that we are experiencing and how I hope they will positively influence the continued success of HRDR through diversifying and digitizing.
The New Editorial Team
I am honored to introduce the new editorial team of HRDR. Dr. Julia Storberg-Walker of North Carolina State University will be taking my place as associate editor and Ms. Minjung Kim, a HRD PhD candidate at Texas A&M University, is our new managing editor. And I am most excited to be taking the helm as editor of HRDR. My predecessors—Ed Holton, Rich Torraco, and Tom Reio—have set a high bar and I am committed to bringing you the quality manuscripts and professional service they provided through the journal. My core vision for the content of the journal over the next 3 years can be seen as a threefold approach to diversifying: expansion, criticality, and dialogue.
HRDR can publish many types of nonempirical articles, some of which recent editorials have highlighted (e.g., Callahan, 2010a; Reio, 2010). Nevertheless, we almost exclusively receive conceptual manuscripts and integrative literature reviews. We have been pleased that the submitted conceptual manuscripts are innovative and well integrated and that the integrative literature reviews are frequently following the journal recommendations (i.e., Callahan, 2010b) for constructing a methods section. Of course, we still want to receive these types of manuscripts! But I have often wondered why we receive so few of the other types of manuscripts we could publish. Where are the theory building articles? Is anyone writing histories of the field of HRD? How about the critique of methods used in the field? We would like to see a broader range of diversity of the type of manuscripts submitted to match the diversity of topics we see at HRDR.
As part of our diversity expansion, I encourage submission of manuscripts that take a critical theory lens to all the variety of topics that are in the realm of human resource development. Such manuscripts currently comprise a very small percentage of submissions, and I would like to raise that profile to enable the journal to better represent the broad array of epistemological perspectives held by HRD scholars. As a critical HRD scholar myself, I hope that HRDR will be seen as an outlet of choice for nonempirical manuscripts that offer critical perspectives—in all the various forms of “critical.” I have argued in the past that critical HRD is a significant future for the field (Callahan, 2007), and I see interest in critical HRD continuing to grow—from the development of a dedicated research track at the Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) conference to the creation of a special interest group on CHRD for AHRD members. Thus, I welcome critical theory–oriented manuscripts and will be asking those scholars with expertise in critical theory to step forward as reviewers. At the same time, however, I think it is vitally important that HRDR respect and present nonempirical works from all epistemological perspectives that shape the field. And, in keeping with my own critical orientation, my intent as editor is to create space for a wide variety of different epistemological voices—regardless of the perspective.
Such diversity of voice will hopefully also increase dialogue within the journal. One of the goals often espoused by both Richard Swanson and Gary McLean, former presidents of the AHRD and instrumental supporters in the genesis of this journal, was to move the field forward through dialogue. I see at least two possibilities for doing so. First, I do not recall ever seeing a commentary published in HRDR. I believe that commentaries would contribute toward the realization of such a worthy goal of dialogue. For that reason, I would love to see respectful and thoughtful commentaries submitted to the journal for non-refereed publication consideration. If one of our published manuscripts sparks a compelling thought or hits a nerve, we welcome the opportunity to begin a public dialogue on the points by publishing reader commentaries and author rejoinders. A second possibility for increasing dialogue within the journal, and the field, is through book reviews. HRDR has, on occasion, published book reviews. I see book reviews as dialogic responses to similar to the commentaries I mentioned above. Commentaries and book reviews serve both as reader responses to contributions to the field and as catalysts for engaging in dialogue around the important topics being published in the field of HRD.
The New Process
In the past, HRDR manually managed all manuscripts from submission through reviews and revisions, all the way to production. What a cumbersome process! I applaud the previous editorial teams for the sophisticated systems they created to make the process work. We still have a few manuscripts being processed in the manual system, but we are now almost fully “digitized” with an automated journal management platform.
The new SAGETrack system, through ScholarOne manuscripts, went online August 1, 2011 at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hrdr. At this site, all manuscripts and reviews are processed and tracked. If you are an author, you would create a profile from the above website and submit your manuscript. You can track where the manuscript is in the review process through the site. If you are a reviewer, you also would create a profile that allows you to upload your manuscript reviews, and future manuscripts as well. You will receive (usually automated) messages inviting you to review and reminding you when responses are needed.
Of course, the transition to any new system takes time and comes with unforeseen glitches. Our new editorial team has a double-whammy, so to speak—not only are we new to managing the overall process but we are also using two different systems to do our new jobs! We ask that you please bear with us through the transition period. Our fabulous submitting authors, reviewers, and editorial board members have brought to our attention some of the glitches they have found while interacting with SAGETrack and we are working with SAGE to make our transition as seamless as possible. We hope that our reviewers and authors will grow to appreciate SAGETrack as much as we do!
The Future
For the next 3 years, I hope to work hard on my agenda of “diversifying and digitizing” while continuing the tradition of seeking quality manuscripts and improving internal journal processes. By coupling diversity of manuscript type, manuscript perspective, and dialogue, I hope to be able to present a broader array of quality manuscripts to influence the field of HRD. Through our “digitized” SAGETrack system, I hope to match the efficiency of my predecessors while freeing time to engage in even more strategic endeavors with the internal journal processes.
It was a pleasure to work with Editor Tom Reio, and Managing Editors Sandy Walker and Keisha Hill-Grey toward improving our internal processes at the journal. The lessons I learned from that experience are already being applied as we transition to this new online management system. This is making it more viable for me to pursue initiatives that Tom and I discussed but did not have time to enact—such as coordinating more closely with the editorial board, reevaluating our review criteria, and conducting analyses of how theories and frameworks proposed in published HRDR articles were later used.
I am looking forward to serving the journal, the field, and our readers in my tenure as editor of Human Resource Development Review. Let the journey begin!