Editorial

• Published date: 01 October 2016
• Date: 01 October 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12128

EDITORIAL

MARK PAGELL

University College Dublin

BRIAN FUGATE

University of Arkansas

BARBARA FLYNN

Indiana University

Being appointed as the co-editors of JSCM is both a

great honor and a significant responsibility. Our heart-

felt thanks go to the outgoing editorial team, who

worked tirelessly to transform JSCM into a premiere

journal, leaving us with a considerable legacy. The

best way we can honor that legacy is to build on what

they have done and continue to progress JSCM along

its present trajectory.

We have no intention of changing the Journal’s focus

or direction. The Journal’s mission is and 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 changeswill be evolution-

ary not revolutionary and will build on the solidfounda-

tions built by Craig, Lisa, Chad, Lutz, and Xiande.

In our tenure as the Co-Editors we will be guided by

the following:

First, JSCM has and will continue to publish rigor-

ous, empirical research on supply chain management

topics. And this research must contribute to theory,

through testing established theoretical foundations or

building theory that is unique to the supply chain

management domain.

Second, we recognize that valuing rigor cannot be

done in a way that inhibits the development of sup-

ply chain knowledge and theory. Best methodological

practice is always evolving and situationally specific.

For instance, rigor typically requires multiple respon-

dents for a survey. But there are going to be excep-

tional studies where the use of a single respondent is

an acceptable tradeoff, perhaps due to the issue at

hand or the types of supply chains being studied.

Similarly, there will be occasional studies where a

sample size of one would be most appropriate.

Because we value building supply chain theory so

highly, we will not create one size fits all methodolog-

ical rules for authors. Instead, the onus is on the

authors to show that their research design is the best

choice for their specific research question and that

their research fits within the Journal’s mission.

Third, we have a responsibility to the wider commu-

nity, especially early career researchers, to continue

providing timely and developmental reviews as part of

a fair editorial process. All members of the editorial

team, as well as our AEs and ERB members, are aware

of the import of the review process to the Journal’s

authors. Authors will never get a review that rejects a

paper back from JSCM without saying why and pro-

viding developmental feedback as to what could be

improved upon. Nor will we work with reviewers who

cannot find ways to provide feedback without being

dismissive, sarcastic or nasty. JSCM’s acceptance rate is

less than 10%, and we expect it to stay there. But the

outgoing editorial team was able to maintain very

high standards while being developmental, and we

will do the same.

As part of maintaining a fair review process, we will

avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest and

have set up a governance mechanism for the off-

chance that we do not honor that commitment. This

means that no one with editorial decision making

powers will submit research to be peer reviewed to

the journal.

1

Co-editors and special topic forum edi-

tors will be limited to submitting editorials or

extended introductions to special topic forums.

We have also set up an ombudsman team, com-

prised of Craig Carter, Lisa Ellram and Morgan Swink.

We hope they are never called on in this role, but as

editors we recognize that we will make mistakes and

that our decisions can affect people’s careers. The

ombudsmen will provide an outlet if we are failing,

in any way, in our role or if someone needs to pro-

vide feedback anonymously.

Finally, we have structured the work of the co-edi-

tors as follows. Mark and Brian will primarily handle

day-to-day operations and much of managing the

review process. Barb will be also involved in the

review process. However her primary role will be to

1

Papers that were in the system prior to the transition to the

new editorial team will continue being processed anonymously,

however.

October 2016 3

EDITORIAL