Editorial

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12121
• Date: 01 March 2016
• Author: Thomas J. Goldsby,Walter Zinn
• Published date: 01 March 2016

Editorial

Walter Zinn and Thomas J. Goldsby

The Ohio State University

As we start our tenure as co-editors (we have been handling new

submissions since last October), it is appropriate to thank Matt

Waller and Stan Fawcett, our predecessors, for handing off JBL

in great shape and for helping us manage a smooth transition. In

this editorial, we will restate the key ideas we commit to bring

to the journal and share some initial observations from our first

few months on the job. Hopefully, this will be of interest to JBL

authors and readers.

In a previous editorial (Goldsby and Zinn 2015), we state key

ideas intended to preserve and strengthen JBL’s top attributes as

a journal its DNA so to speak. First, JBL should remain an outlet

for publishing applied logistics and supply chain research. An

affinity for practice is a long-standing tradition in logistics and

supply chain research. Our field has benefited from the close

relationship between practitioners and academics over the years.

Applied research is a good way of preserving and strengthening

our relationship with practice and to reinforce a legacy of rele-

vance.

Second, JBL should remain open to a multitude of method-

ological approaches. This is important as our field historically

draws from different research traditions and with different

methodological needs. These include, but are not limited to, opti-

mization, multivariate statistics, experiments, simulations, and

qualitative methods. What matters is that the method selected is

most appropriate to address the question asked in the research.

In the same editorial, we propose measures to further

strengthen JBL’s reputation. Foremost is the measure to amend

the review process to make sure that the methodology applied in

any article published in JBL conforms to the state-of-the-art.

Methodological rigor ensures that valid conclusions are reported

in the research. It is furthermore the common denominator

among all top journals. To that end, we have adopted the con-

cept of a “methods review,”whereby specially selected experts

constructively review submissions to ensure that the method cho-

sen for the research is appropriate and that the analysis is con-

ducted and reported at the highest level.

With regard to article types, the policy of publishing Special

Topic Forums (STFs) will continue. We will also occasionally

publish Thought Leadership pieces, usually by invitation. Dia-

logue and Forward Thinking pieces are discontinued. Finally, we

introduced a special review process for manuscripts submitted by

Ohio State faculty and doctoral students. Given the potential con-

flict of interest, such submissions are being handled by a guest

editor-in-chief (EIC), who independently selects reviewers and

has sole discretion on the disposition of the manuscript. There

are manuscripts currently being handled by guest EICs, and we

thank them for their service.

During these initial months, we made a small number of

observations worth noting, including the number of qualitative

manuscripts being submitted, the quality of the hypotheses found

in many submissions, and the importance of managerial implica-

tions. While, as stated above, JBL is and will remain open to a

broad range of methodological approaches, about 50% of manu-

scripts submitted to date are qualitative in nature. This is a rather

high number. Certainly, qualitative research is appropriate for

some types of research questions. Yet, publishing too many qual-

itative papers risks narrowing the substantive range of the jour-

nal. It also risks that JBL will be inadvertently repositioned as

primarily a qualitative journal. Such repositioning would counter

the editorial policy of publishing papers adopting a variety of

methodological approaches. We therefore qualitative research,

when quantitative empirics are inappropriate or lack the neces-

sary flexibility to arrive at an explanation. Combining methods,

while not required, is another good way to approach many com-

plex phenomena that we observe in our field.

Second, in some submissions that include the testing of

hypotheses, it is noticeable that a few authors are stating

hypotheses that are non-falsifiable or really too obvious to be of

interest to readers and the scholarly community. However, we do

recognize that the definition of “obvious”is likely to generate

eternal and inconclusive debate. To circumvent this problem and

offer authors a practical rule, we would like to suggest that

hypothesis justification should also consider one or more coun-

tervailing hypotheses that could equally be true. If authors cannot

conceive a feasible countervailing hypothesis, then perhaps the

original hypothesis needs work.

Third, given the applied nature of the journal, authors should

provide a substantial body of managerial implications emerging

from the results of the research. Meaningful implications, with

their potential of impacting practice, are significant research con-

tributions. Managerial implications are thus expected of papers

gaining entry in the journal. One should not confuse our empha-

sis on methods rigor as a substitute for relevance. These two

qualities can—and must—travel together.

Finally, we are thankful for the contributions of the many par-

ties that make the journal such a valuable resource: submitting

authors for sending us their best logistics and supply chain

research; reviewers, methods reviewers, associate editors, and

Corresponding author:

Walter Zinn, Professor of Logistics and Department Chair, Depart-

ment of Marketing and Logistics, Fisher College of Business, The

Ohio State University, 500C Fisher Hall |2100 Neil Ave., Colum-

bus, OH 43210, USA; E-mail: zinn.13@osu.edu

Journal of Business Logistics, 2016, 37(1): 4–5 doi: 10.1111/jbl.12121

© Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals