We have thoroughly enjoyed our first year as editors-in-chief of Construction Management and Economics. We have begun to reposition the Journal as a home for critical debate and commentary, alongside our traditional focus on high-quality scholarly contributions. In overseeing this transition, a particular highlight has been engaging with our authors and reviewers in relation to the kinds of developments that they would like to see at the Journal. For example, we have participated in several “meet the editor” sessions at universities and conferences around the world where colleagues have suggested ways that might make the journal, and the kinds of contributions that we elicit, more appealing to our readership. These suggestions have included the creation of new paper types and ideas for special issues, some of which we have now commissioned and others we intend to develop into calls for the forthcoming volume. We have also been delighted with the response to our invited papers that we published in issues 1 and 2; these have clearly provoked debate within the pages of the journal, but also across the community such as within conference keynotes and paper sessions. Here, we have seen the positive impact that Construction Management and Economics can have at the centre of our research community.
In our opening editorial, we reflected on the shifting contours of both the field of construction management and economics and the publishing landscape itself. It is clear that these are challenging times for our field in terms of maintaining its credibility and connection to the mainstream debates with which we need to engage, and also in terms of establishing lines of research which connect to – and ultimately influence – practice. The upstream challenge demands that we embrace a new kind of scholarship focused around a more profound theoretical engagement if our work is to resonate with the adjacent fields that we need to be recognized within. In pursuit of this, our editorials this year have set out a case for a more critical agenda and for a greater diversity in the papers that our community generates. In particular, we have called for more critical engagement with our subject matter, and for papers with a deeper theoretical engagement. We are pleased that these calls, and the papers that we published in our opening issue, have begun to address the former issue; we are seeing a more critical kind of debate emerge from within our field and critical essays and notes have been submitted on a wide range of topics. The response to the papers by Koskela and Styhre, in particular, have shown how contested ideas might provide fertile ground for future debates and developments. Yet, all of this will count for nothing if we fail to connect with the practice community that provides our empirical arena. The need for high-quality engaged scholarship remains as important as ever if our work is to have downstream resonance with those with whom we seek to engage.
Reflecting on the content of this volume, a missing ingredient has been the lack of state-of-the-art reviews that can set out important debates within our sub-fields. We welcome review articles that provide an underlying analytical framework that goes beyond grouping or categorizing related work, to critically engaging with such work in a way that establishes new departure points for subsequent lines of enquiry. Such reviews must not only connect to the construction management literature, but should also find associations with broader literatures on the topic wherever they reside. Done effectively such reviews will offer a critical synthesis of the state-of-the-art, and will set out the key debates, contested arguments and new lines of enquiry. In order to try to encourage these kinds of submissions, we will include them on our new “CME Hub page” where we will also publish all editorials, letters, critical rejoinders and critical essays. Importantly, all of these papers will be free to view for a period of time, and so are likely to generate more citations than our standard papers.
Other content we are seeking to attract next year include more empirically grounded papers which reveal something of the actualities of construction practice. We welcome work that generates insights into actions, rather than mere perceptions of industry practice. We would also like to encourage additional critical essays – more polemical pieces that establish a new position or perspective. We are pleased that we have several of these under review, which we will no doubt see in press in the New Year – keep them coming! We also welcome additional suggestions for special issues. We have some exciting issues in the pipeline, including one on the management of building information modelling.
We will not deny that our efforts to diversify the content of the Journal are, in part, an attempt to address what might be seen as our Achilles heel; the need for us to get an Impact Factor. Many of our authors have expressed concerns that without this the journal will not attract the kind of copy that will enable it to remain as the premiere outlet for work in our field. We recognize this and agree that, despite our first quartile status in Scopus across three areas (Building and Construction, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering and Management Information Systems), the lack of an Impact Factor might limit the numbers of papers that we will receive from those seeking the highest impact from their work. Like many other journals, we have been included in the “Emerging Sources Citation Index”. Indeed, we were among the original journals included. This is positive, but it will not give us the status that will ultimately lead to submission of papers from leading authors in countries where the Impact Factor has become the most important metric. In deciding when to submit for an Impact Factor timing is everything; it is essential that our published copy is having traction across the leading journals to which our content relates in the form of significant citations of as many of our articles as possible. We are hoping that with the support of the community we will be in a position to submit for an Impact Factor next year, but the decision will rest upon the citation performance of the papers that have been published over the past two years.
Part of our push for an Impact Factor will involve a renewed focus on the promotion of our content. Indeed, we are very conscious of our obligation as journal editors to promote our authors work and we do this through developments to our website and though social media promotion, informed by our continual monitoring of the impact that our papers are having. Our Twitter account (@CMEJournal) is accumulating followers and we use this to promote papers as they appear online in our “Latest Articles” section. We are also working with our authors around how they might promote their own work effectively to ensure that it gets appropriate recognition throughout our community and beyond.
In reflecting on the first year in this role, we would like to thank those who have supported the production of our first volume as editors-in-chief. The lifeblood of a peer reviewed journal is the work of our reviewers, and it is important that we acknowledge all of those who have provided their time and intellectual energy to help develop the content of the Journal. As editors we see papers improve through our multi-stage review process and our reviewers often provide 2 or 3 sets of reviews where necessary. We see this as a distinguishing feature of our journal and one which speaks to the commitment of our reviewers in supporting the quality of what the field produces. The ultimate decision of what we publish, however, rests with the editorial team and we would like to thank our fellow editors for their diligent work over the past year. Amy Javernick-Will and Richard Fellows have both embraced their new roles as editors with energy and vigour, and Paul Chan and Chris Harty have continued to provide their meticulous support in developing the journal. Chris Harty has decided to step down as editor at the end of this volume. We would like to thank Chris for his contributions over the many years he has been editor on the journal and wish him every success in his new management role. This does, however, provide an opening for a new editor to join us in the New Year. If you would be interested in applying for this position please contact either of us directly.
Finally, we would like to restate what we have said several times already over this past year – we see Construction Management and Economics as a journal of our community, for our community. It is important that it grows and thrives within the more challenging publishing environment that we now face. The Journal is nothing without the voluntary contributions of our authors and reviewers and we hope that you will help us to continue to develop the Journal over the next year.
Joint Editors-in-Chief
Construction Management and Economics