The “Invisible Hands” in Research: The Critical Roles of Reviewers and Associate Editors

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12137
• Author: Thomas J. Goldsby,Walter Zinn
• Date: 01 September 2016
• Published date: 01 September 2016

Editorial

The “Invisible Hands”in Research: The Critical Roles of

Reviewers and Associate Editors

Walter Zinn and Thomas J. Goldsby

The Ohio State University

In this Editorial, we underscore the critical roles fulfilled by reviewers and associate editors (AEs) in the provision of the journal’s review

process. The so-called “invisible hands”of reviewers and AEs not only influence the editorial outcomes of individual works, but, more sub-

stantially, the author experience with and research impact of the journal. To that end, we offer observations and guidelines for reviewers and

AEs, reinforcing the expectations we maintain for those helping to shape the work that ultimately appears in the journal.

Keywords: reviewer; associate editor; review process; research impact

Approaching our first anniversary as Co-Editors of the

Journal of Business Logistics, we take a moment to reflect on the

immense variety of excellent research conducted today on the sub-

jects of Logistics and Supply Chain Management, and to thank con-

tributors from aroundthe world for submitting their best work to the

journal. We are fortunate to receive papers that explore traditional

problems in logistics at unprecedented depths as well as works that

uncover new developments that promise to shape the discipline,

business, and society. Similarly, the Journal of Business Logistics

rates as among the most impressive journals anywhere in regard to

the diversity of methods employed. This observation is perhaps best

exemplified in the data populating Table 1, depicting the methods

employed in peer-reviewed papers appearing in the journal during

three time segments,dating back to the journal’s founding in 1978.

While the decline of survey research is noticeable in the top

row of the table, we call your attention to the emergence of

“Other”methods found in the bottom row. Nearly, one-fifth of

the peer-reviewed articles appearing in the journal between 2011

and 2015 employed a method (or methods) that was/were not on

the radar when Mentzer and Kahn (1995) conducted their retro-

spective analysis of the journal’sfirst 16 years (1978–93).

Advances in research methods, broadening perspectives, and

greater complexity in chosen research problems all lend to an

evolution and expansion in the methods selected, and we feel

this diversity in problems and associated diversity in methods

nurture creative approaches to the advancement of the science

and practice of logistics and supply chain management.

While it is often said that the quality of a journal is only as

good as the quality of submissions, we feel this observation

short-changes the critical roles of reviewers and associate editors

(AEs) in the review process. Excellent reviewers and AEs can

transform an acceptable paper into a major contribution. Yet,

these efforts are largely anonymous to the submitting authors, in

keeping with the double-blind review process. In this way,

reviewers and AEs act as the “invisible hands”in the review pro-

cess. As Smith (1776) alluded in his classic treatise some

240 years ago, when economic actors pursue their own self-inter-

est, equilibrium between supply and demand is achieved, and the

larger society benefits from the collective actions of self-inter-

ested actors.

Reviewers and AEs, meanwhile, lend their knowledge,

insights, and talents toward the betterment of the individual

works they referee and the advancement of the larger discipline,

ultimately achieving balance in supply and demand for innova-

tive research. We applaud the generosity of this invisible, yet

powerful force in ensuring that the fullest potential of submitted

works is realized in the review process. To that end, we would

like to offer some observations and guidelines for reviewers and

AEs, reinforcing the expectations we maintain for those helping

to shape the work that ultimately appears in the journal.

Table 1: Dominant methods employed in JBL articles

Category

% Articles published in JBL

1978–

1993

1

1994–

2010

2011–

2015

Survey 54.3 43.8 35.8

Simulation 14.9 7.1 7.4

Interviews 13.8 8.2 9.5

Archival studies 9.6 8.7 10.5

Math modeling 4.3 12.0 5.3

Case studies 3.2 8.4 12.6

Other (e.g., content

analysis, experiments,

social network analysis,

multimethod)

–3.0 18.9

1

Source: Mentzer and Kahn (1995).

Corresponding author:

Walter Zinn, Associate Dean for Graduate Students and Programs,

Professor of Logistics, Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State

University, 200 Fisher Hall | 2100 Neil Ave., Columbus, OH 43210,

USA; E-mail: zinn.13@osu.edu

Journal of Business Logistics, 2016, 37(3): 202–204 doi: 10.1111/jbl.12137

© Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals