Methods to Our Madness: Adapting Methods to the Changing Nature of Our Problems

• Author: Thomas J. Goldsby,Walter Zinn
• Published date: 01 December 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12200
• Date: 01 December 2018

Editorial

Methods to Our Madness: Adapting Methods to the Changing

Nature of Our Problems

Thomas J. Goldsby and Walter Zinn

The Ohio State University

This editorial presents a series of frequently asked questions (FAQs) directed to us, as editors of the journal. It speaks to an assessment of

the methods review element of the manuscript review process and the evolution witnessed in research methods employed in the journal.

We illustrate the current state of research in JBL in terms of the methods used in accepted manuscripts, encouraging authors to employ the

method(s) that best fit the research problem at hand. The purpose in bringing forward these observations is to crystallize our expectations of

submissions, ensuring a more promising path to publication for authors while elevating the validity of findings presented in our work. We also

introduce the articles appearing in this issue.

Keywords: research methods; review process; logistics; supply chain; survey research; method bias

RESEARCH PROBLEMS AND METHODS

Previous editorials speak to the incredible times in which we find

ourselves as logistics and supply chain practitioners and scholars.

Perhaps never before has such immense change occurred in such

a short amount of time. With substantial—and sometimes fren-

zied—changes come opportunities for interesting research prob-

lems. We have iterated the great need for research to cast a light

forward, illuminating opportunities for improved business prac-

tice in the face of such change (Goldsby and Zinn 2016; Zinn

and Goldsby 2017a,b). Further, the immense breadth of logistics

and supply chain practice intensifies the opportunities that lay

before us.

Great breadth in research problems yields diversity in the

means of framing and approaching the problems. The framing

and approaching of problems introduces the methods for con-

ducting the research investigation. While mere conjecture, we

assert that no other business discipline can match the consider-

able scope and breadth of research problems that we face today

in supply chain management (SCM), consisting of both intra-

and interorganizational management concerns as well as a bur-

geoning array of business-to-consumer issues. In turn, we are

afforded incredible variety in the means by which we conduct

research through our methods. To go even further, many of the

problems addressed in supply chain research today call for mul-

tiple methods or means of triangulation in light of their depth

and complexity (Sodhi et al. 2012; Wieland and Wallenburg

2012).

Clearly, to offer meaningful contributions, research that

informs management practice on a valid basis calls for the com-

bined pursuit of significant business problems through a rigorous

approach. This editorial is intended to illustrate the current state

of research in JBL in terms of the methods employed. We also

offer advice for prospective authors seeking to successfully navi-

gate the journal’s review process, including the methods compo-

nent of the review, discussed next.

WHY THE METHODS REVIEW? AND HOW’SIT

GOING?

Upon assuming the editorship of JBL in 2015, we instituted a

methods review, an innovation to this journal and a first in the

SCM space. The purpose of the methods review is to ensure that

the proper method or methods are applied to the research prob-

lem and that the method(s) are applied appropriately (i.e., using

state-of-the-art approaches to ensure proper rigor and as much

validity as possible). While originally met with reactions ranging

from curiosity to anxiety, we believe that the added emphasis on

methods integrity has served this dual purpose (the right method

applied appropriately) quite well.

To provide proper context, let us refer to the journal’s review

process (see Figure 1). Papers enter the process through Wiley’s

JBL Manuscript Central system. Papers undergo an editorial

screening for proper format and assurance that each paper is

intended for review as a regular submission or special topic

forum (STF) consideration.

1

We then review each manuscript for

assessment of fit with the journal, potential for contribution, and

prospects for a fair review. Many papers fail to meet these stan-

dards and are desk rejected. Others offer glimpses of contribu-

tion, but require some form of adjustment in order to merit a

complete review. These papers receive a decision of reject and

resubmit, with instructions for remedying the deficiency.

Remaining papers, then, are assigned to an Associate Editor

(AE), three independent referees, and one methods reviewer. The

referees provide a complete front-to-back read, while the

Corresponding author:

Thomas J. Goldsby, Fisher College of Business, 2100 Neil Avenue,

Columbus, OH 43210, USA; E-mail: goldsby.2@osu.edu

1

Papers intended for special topic forums are directed to the

guest editor(s) for review consistent with the process described

here. Recall that papers having an Ohio State affiliation are

assigned to a guest editor as well.

Journal of Business Logistics, 2018, 39(4): 234–241 doi: 10.1111/jbl.12200

© 2018 Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals