Discussions and Research: Leadership, Cultural Change, and Beyond

This joint (second and third) issue of Volume 36 of the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (JOBM) provides a platform for additional discussions of the emerging applications of behavior science to sociocultural challenges. The selected articles in the special section aid organizations and leaders in creating new models of stewardship and provide opportunities for innovation while adjusting to growing social issues and technological advances as well as crises in education and other complex socioeconomic systems. They also address the potential of how collaborative research among academic groups, businesses, and communities can affect the well-being of organizational members as well as consumers of organizational services and products. Focusing on the well-being of organizational members, consumers plus the overarching social and physical environments, pomotes the challenge of examining the pro-social value in light of the financial value of our interventions (Houmanfar, Alavosius, Morford, Reimer, & Herbst, 2015; Houmanfar & Mattaini, 2016).

The second section of this Issue includes a Discussion Article that provides a range of important topics to promote generalization and maintenance of behavior analytic interventions in organizations. The emphasis of our scientific group on provocative discussions pertaining to emerging socio-cultural topics and research are well represented in this issue and provides a recurring opportunity for re-orientating our readers to the categories of publications plus associated guidelines, and inviting submissions capturing the range of scholarship in our discipline. Below is an overview of the publication categories in JOBM.

Research articles

JOBM’s primary mission is to publish articles that promote scientific research in organizational behavior management (OBM). Scientific methods demonstrate functional relations, and these are the cornerstone of our understanding of behavior in organizations. Research Articles describe experimental studies that eliminate or control confounding variables as potential factors influencing performance change and convincingly reveal the effect(s) of manipulated independent variable(s). A variety of experimental designs using within- or between-subjects comparisons are utilized to systematically explore behavior in organizations. In describing experimental designs, Research Articles include how the integrity of each independent variable and dependent variable was assessed and achieved. Papers that might qualify as Research Articles will undergo a full peer review by as many as three to five scholars to ensure that they qualify as properly controlled studies of meaningful organizational behavior. Well-controlled experimental analog studies and examinations of behavioral processes in simulations and laboratory preparations that contribute to understanding organizational behavior and interventions under field conditions will also qualify as Research Articles. For example, the relative effects of various rules or instructions on individual or group performance might be captured within a work simulation or laboratory analog of an organizational context to develop methodology for testing the generality of findings in field settings. Experimentally sound replications and extensions of previous work are also acceptable as Research Articles. Research Articles are expected to range from 20 to 30 double-spaced pages, not including figures. The following checklist is used by the reviewers to evaluate the merits of Research Articles:

• Clear description of the problem and the research literature supporting the study

• Clear description of the experimental methods enabling replication

• Appropriate experimental design (e.g., multiple baseline, reversal, or other single-subject design; appropriate group design)

• Clear demonstration of effect

• Reliability of the dependent variable; integrity of independent variables is a strength

• Clear discussion of results

Research reports

Research Reports require less detailed descriptions of background, methodology, or findings than Research Articles and provide authors with an outlet for interesting, scholarly, and potentially important contributions to the empirical foundations of OBM that at the moment simply cannot satisfy the criteria for full-length Research Articles. Authors should adhere to a limit of 200 typed lines for the main text area (not including the title page, abstract, or references) with up to three tables or figures. The Research Report will be the primary outlet for the data set published. Accordingly, the author(s) must agree not to publish an extended version of the Report in another journal. Research Reports will undergo expedited peer review to assess applied significance, clarity of presentation, and reasonable data collection and analysis. Reviewers will not hold Research Report submissions to the same high standards of experimental rigor required for Research Articles, as these studies typically are pilot projects, suggesting systematic replication in more controlled experiments. Thus, the Research Report format offers an expedited publication process for getting promising data to our readers along with recommendations for further research.

Research Reports describing follow-up data to a previously published project will also be considered for publication. In this case, authors should submit a report-length treatment of the project in which they briefly review and cite the originally published work (which could have been published in any peer-reviewed journal), clearly describe the procedures used to produce generalization and maintenance, and discuss the demonstrated effects. When preparing a follow-up Research Report, authors should not resubmit originally published data in the same format as they were published. They can, however, report summary data, like mean levels of performance as reported in the original work, for the purposes of comparison to the follow-up data.

If the efficacy of an OBM principle appears to be supported by otherwise reliable data in spite of experimental shortcomings such as a lack of integrity associated with an independent variable, high face validity of the variables might nevertheless be sufficient to support publication of the data if recommendations are provided for more controlled experimentation. Pilot studies and studies that do not provide the full complement of controls required of Research Articles but still do provide insights important to OBM researchers and practitioners may be published as Research Reports. The following is the checklist that is used by the reviewers:

• 200-line main text area (not including the title page, abstract, or references)

• Concise description of the problem and brief overview of the research literature demonstrating applied significance

• Demonstration of potential effect (can be attained through a believable size of effect using an AB design, for example) worth examining in more controlled experiments

• Clear description of experimental methods and limitations

• Reliability of the dependent variable

• Clear discussion of results and suggestions for better control

• Not held to the same rigorous standards as Research Articles

Reports from the field

Data-based case studies that describe the application of OBM principles in organizational settings are valuable to the ongoing development of the field, and some of these will be published in a Reports From the Field section of the JOBM. In many instances OBM researchers and practitioners cannot use field experimental intervention designs required to qualify their study as a Research Article. At the same time, OBM researchers and practitioners may systematically implement OBM interventions that can be described in detail, and in some cases partial or complete data regarding performance changes associated with the interventions may be collected and presented. Papers reviewed for potential publication in the Reports From the Field section will (a) provide adequate background on the applied problem encountered; (b) describe the behavioral and practical considerations addressed to develop the reported intervention solution; (c) describe the application program in sufficient detail that a person trained in OBM techniques could effectively replicate the procedures and data collection processes the authors used; and (d) include an evaluation of the OBM solution, including cost-benefit analyses and social validity data if available. Authors are also encouraged to offer advice to readers regarding how their work might be changed to satisfy the requirements of a Research Article by other OBM researchers who might replicate the intervention within a field experimental design.

Authors should adhere to a limit of 300 typed lines for the main text area (not including the title page, abstract, or references) with up to three tables or figures. Reports From the Field will be the primary outlet for the data set published, so the author should not publish an extended version of the Report in another journal. Reports From the Field will undergo expedited peer review to assess the contribution of the manuscript to OBM and the clarity of presentation. Manuscripts that claim proprietary OBM processes and thereby do not provide sufficient detail for replication will not be accepted as Reports From the Field. The following is the checklist that is used by the reviewers:

• 300-line main text area (not including the title page, abstract, or references)

• Adequate background on the applied problem

• Description of the behavioral and practical considerations addressed to develop the reported intervention solution

• Description of the solution in sufficient detail that a person trained in OBM techniques could effectively replicate the procedures and data collection processes the authors used

• Experimental designs and dependent variable reliability are preferable but not necessary

• Evaluation of the OBM solution, including cost-benefit analyses and social validity data if available

Discussion articles

Manuscripts that develop foundations of behavior analysis or critically review a particular area of research in OBM may be accepted as Discussion Articles. Discussion Articles will undergo full peer review by up to five scholars. The reviewers will evaluate the merit of arguments made in the manuscript and judge the usefulness of the perspective with respect to whether it is likely to advance research and/or practice of OBM. JOBM’s Editors and/or members of the Editorial Board often solicit meaningful commentary on Discussion Articles.

Comment articles

Comment Articles take the form of open letters to the readership addressing conceptual and methodological issues, new lines of research, sources of funding, historical issues and trivia, or address issues raised in previously published articles. Commentaries will typically be reviewed by the Editor and one Associate Editor. Commentaries will generally be limited to 100 lines of text.

Book reviews

Many books of interest to JOBM’s readership are published each year. Authors wishing to prepare a review of a book should contact JOBM’s Editor to propose a Book Review. Reviews should contain the title of the book being reviewed in the title and provide a full citation of the book in American Psychological Association style before proceeding with the review. Reviews should be limited to 150 lines of text. Book Reviews will typically be reviewed by the Editor or Associate Editor to ensure that they are compelling and provocative while offering a fair and justified evaluation of the book.

The diversity of themes and quality of articles in this issue align with this focus and provoke scholarly investigations and discussion. As always, I acknowledge the voluntary effort invested by our Associate and Guest Editors plus the reviewers in supporting JOBM. Their valuable contributions sustain JOBM’s status as a leading journal publishing behavior science related to organizations.