Overall, our objective is to publish original, rigorous, well-done empirical research that has significant implications for operations managers and academics. Articles with a primarily algorithmic focus should be sent to one of the many journals that specialize in that approach. Theory-building or -testing articles based on empirical (not necessarily quantitative) research with a strong managerial focus is central to the mission of JOM. Articles that deal with OM as a field are also solicited for the NOTES section of the journal, as are Comments (concerning previously published papers), Errata, Descriptive research, Methodology papers, and regular studies but with a limited scope or small sample sizes. Although these types of papers must also be original and well-done, their methodological style and rigor may be subject to different standards (e.g., descriptive research and tutorials) than regular research studies. (Note that JOM will not publish tutorials on subjects).
Timeliness
One of the biggest challenges for the JOM editor is obtaining reviews ON TIME! To enable this to occur, all manuscripts and correspondence with reviewers and Associate Editors will occur via email. All manuscripts will be sent as an electronic attachment in Microsoft Word. If you are unable to download the manuscript, please let the Assistant Editor know and a text version can be sent to you. The first task in being timely is to let the editor know if you can review the paper by the time requested (and, if not, when) by sending an email promptly. If you cannot review the paper within a reasonable period after the requested time, please indicate this as soon as possible after receiving the electronic manuscript so another reviewer can be found.
Nature of the Review
In terms of the review itself, strive to make your comments constructive and positive, especially if your eventual recommendation is to reject the paper. (And, if so, can you recommend another journal where the paper might be more appropriate, especially if altered to meet your criticisms?) Although I will attempt to cull out those articles that are inappropriate for JOM before sending them out for review, I might note that slight reviews that simply say reject, or accept, with no justification are virtually worthless, as are reviews that focus on only a single, “fatal” flaw in the paper.
Please try to be detailed in your comments, starting with general comments about the purpose, goals, or objectives of the paper; its strengths; its contribution(s); and its flaws. Number your comments so the authors, if they revise the paper, can comment about how they responded to each of your comments. Next, list (again numbering) your specific comments about the paper, including any typos or grammatical alterations needed. A common approach here is to organize this list in the order of pages in the paper. Another approach is to group the criticisms in terms of either topic or level of importance (typos then being either first or last). Consider providing useful references you are familiar with, alternative theoretical underpinnings, different explanations for the results obtained, another focus for the paper, further extensions, implications for practice and research, or ways of repositioning the work so as to avoid any fatal errors. Finally, please address the questions I have included with the paper in my reviewing request to you.
Service Benefits
And finally, what are the rewards of all this work? Well, there are indeed some.
1. Being an editor or associate editor of a top journal in your field is a major distinction in your career. Most associate editors for journals are selected on the basis of two attributes: (1) their publications in the field (including aspects such as quality, rigor, and importance), and (2) their performance as reviewers. Normally, these people come to the attention of an editor looking for associate editors on the basis of their publications but the most important attribute is their performance as reviewers. Indeed, if an associate editor fails to do a quality and timely job, s/he doesn’t last long as an associate editor. And how do editors get chosen? Primarily on the basis of their performance as associate editors! I might note that Elsevier Science Publishers, the organization that publishes JOM, gives the editors of each of their journals a standard software package that lets us rate each reviewer and associate editor in terms of their quality and timeliness, a feature I use for every reviewer and associate editor who is sent a paper. Those who perform well are reappointed. In addition, I also use “Consulting Associate Editors” from time to time for situations requiring fast turnaround or special expertise, and good performance as a reviewer is an important selection criterion.
2. Another benefit of doing a quality, timely job as a reviewer or associate editor is the help that I may be able to offer as an outside reviewer of your employment, reappointment, promotion, or tenure application. Your performance for JOM would clearly be a significant factor in my recommendation.
3. Also, reviewing the latest research studies in your area keeps you current as a teacher, researcher, consultant, or manager.
4. And finally, superior performance as a journal reviewer, as well as in other areas of academic responsibility, is a service requirement of our profession. Those who do a good job in these areas will have colleagues and champions who will come to their aid throughout their career.
