Happy birthday! Celebrating 30 years as JOB, 5 years of review issues, and 1 year of the “JOB Annual Review”

• Published date: 01 February 2018
• Author: Marie Dasborough,Paul Harvey
• Date: 01 February 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2269

EDITORIAL

Happy birthday! Celebrating 30 years as JOB, 5 years of review

issues, and 1 year of the “JOB Annual Review”

1|INTRODUCTION

In 1988, the Journal of Occupational Behavior was renamed, marking

the birth of the Journal of Organizational Behavior (JOB). The founding

editor was Cary Cooper, with Douglas Hall and Thomas Cummings

serving as associate editors. From the beginning, the journal was

framed as an international journal of Industrial, Occupational, and

Organizational Psychology and Behavior. Looking at the topics listed

under the Aims and Scope of the first JOB issue (e.g., motivation, per-

formance, job design, occupational stress, job satisfaction, selection

and training, organizational change, research methodology, leadership,

and power), we can see that the journal has stayed true to its initial

vision. JOB continues to publish the leading research in these fields

today.

At its conception, there was no annual review issue in JOB, nor any

special issues or unique sections, apart from a Book Review section

edited by Debra Nelson at the Oklahoma State University. Over the

years, we have seen steady development in terms of the journal's

structure, with many unique offerings added—Point/CounterPoint,

Researcher's Notebook, the Incubator, and, of course, our Annual

Review.

In comparison with the other features, the Annual Review is a rel-

atively new addition to JOB. In 2013, the International Review of Indus-

trial and Organizational Psychology (IRIOP) joined forces with JOB to

publish one special issue each year. Shortly after taking on the editor-

ship of IRIOP, we decided to change the name to the JOB Annual

Review (Harvey & Dasborough, 2017). This decision was made, in part,

to reduce any possible confusion about the purpose of the special

issue among readers and potential contributors.

It would appear that our plan was successful—in fact, some might

say it was too successful! In the year that followed, we have seen a

drastic increase in the number and quality of submissions. This year,

the Annual Review received more than double the number of submis-

sions we received just 2 years ago. While this pleases us greatly, it cre-

ates at least two challenges that, despite being “good problems to

have,”are challenges nonetheless. One is the nonlinear increase in edi-

torial demands caused by such dramatic growth in submission num-

bers. On this front, we are exceptionally grateful to the large and

growing team of reviewers who have responded to our requests (and

occasional pleas) for their valuable service.

The other is that more submissions mean more competition, push-

ing the bar for authors ever higher. To help contributors navigate this

increasingly competitive landscape, we offer some guidelines below.

2|GUIDELINES FOR POTENTIAL

CONTRIBUTORS

In late 2017, we began providing more detailed advice to our reviewers

to ensure that the highest quality papers get selected for publication.

These instructions also serve to reiterate and reinforce the long‐stand-

ing goals and criteria of the Annual Review that, since beginning as a

book series in 1986 under the IRIOP masthead, have helped it establish

a unique identity among the growing number of review outlets that

now dot the horizon. For the benefit of future contributors, a summary

of these instructions follows.

Articles published in the Annual Review must be:

•Critical. As legendary astronomer Carl Sagan once said, “I urge

you to bear in mind the imperfection of our current knowl-

edge. Science is never finished.”In the spirit of these words,

Annual Review articles must present a critical assessment of

the literature being reviewed. Simply providing an inventory

(or “laundry list,”to borrow a phrase occasionally used by

reviewers) of published work is insufficient for publication, as

is presenting a purely positive assessment of existing work.

Authors are expected to take stock of the existing research

in the area being reviewed and suggest ways to improve it

going forward. This requires an honest appraisal of weaknesses

and limitations revealed by the review (e.g., overreliance on a

specific methodology or theoretical perspective, conflicting def-

initions of constructs in use, and problems with commonly

used measures).

•Comprehensive. Annual Review articles must present a thorough

accounting of an established body of research. Reviews of emerg-

ing areas are rarely permitted. We do, however, encourage those

interested in summarizing nascent areas of research (or

reinvigorating stale areas) to consider the JOB Incubator as a

potential outlet.

•Systematic. Related to the previous requirement, we recognize

that it may be infeasible to discuss each relevant article in a given

research area. Authors must, however, show evidence of a system-

atic approach in which a representative and objective process for

identifying and including publications is established and followed.

Purely narrative reviews in which authors pick and choose publica-

tions for inclusion on an ad hoc or nontransparent basis are not

permitted.

DOI: 10.1002/job.2269

J Organ Behav. 2018;39:131–133. Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job 131