From Conceptual Analyses to Research and Practice

This Issue contains the first selection of articles for Volume 37 of the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management. The Discussion Articles, Research Article, Research Reports, and Reports from the Field offer a reminder of the wide range of scholarly work in OBM starting with the discussion of internalities as related to organizational externalities (Biglan, 2009). This interdisciplinary theme which extends from the previous issue of JOBM is followed by a series of discussions, methodological studies and applications highlighting the importance of training, feedback, data collection, and observation based systems in design and implementation of effective performance management technologies. The research emphasis and conceptual advances in our scientific domain is well represented in this issue. The comprehensive range of selected papers provide a timely opportunity for re-orientating our readers to the categories of publications plus associated guidelines, and invited submissions capturing the range of scholarship in our discipline. Below is an overview of the publication categories in JOBM.

Research articles

The Journal of Organizational Behavior Management’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 subject 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 3–5 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 20–30 double-spaced pages, not including figures. The following checklist is used by the reviewers to evaluate the merits of Research Articles:

• Clear description of problem and research literature supporting the study

• Clear description of 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 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 with the main text area (not including the title page, abstract, or references) with up to 3 tables or figures. The research report will be the primary outlet for the dataset 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 to get 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, author(s) should submit a report length treatment of the project wherein 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 the mean levels of performance as reported in the original work, for 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 title page, abstract, or references)

• Concise description of problem and brief overview of 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 dependent variable

• Clear discussion of results and suggestions for better control

• Not held to the same rigorous standards as are 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 Journal. 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 an 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 requirements of a Research Article by other OBM researchers that 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 3 tables or figures. Reports from the Field will be the primary outlet for the dataset 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 clarity of presentation. Articles 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 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 5 scholars. They will evaluate the merit of arguments made in the article and judge the usefulness of the perspective developed in the manuscript with respect to whether it is likely to advance research and/or practice of OBM. The Journal’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 are published each year of interest to the Journal’s readership. Authors wishing to prepare a review of a book should contact the Journal’s Editor to propose a Book Review. Reviews should contain the title of the book in the title and provide a full APA citation of the book before proceeding with their review. Reviews should be limited to 150 lines of text. Book Reviews will typically be reviewed by the Editor or Associate Editor to assure the review is compelling and provocative while offering a fair and justified evaluation of the book.

As always, the Journal strives to disseminate best scholarly practices and achieve further impact as a leading scholarly journal in behavior science and interrelated disciplines. The diversity of themes and quality of articles in this issue align with this focus and provoke scholarly investigations and discussions. I acknowledge the voluntary effort invested by our associate editors, guest editors, and reviewers in supporting JOBM. Their valuable contributions sustain JOBM’s status as a leading journal publishing behavior science related to organizations.