Editorial

As we complete our first year as co-editors of the JOM, we wanted to take this opportunity to provide an update on the status of the journal. In general, the JOM continues to do very well as the leading journal in theory-driven, empirically based research of operations management. Recent citation impact factor scores place the JOM among the top OM research outlets. The most recent (2006) impact factor is 2.04, this means that the average article published in JOM is cited two times in the 2 years following its publication. Fig. 1 shows the trend for six leading OM journals and indicates that JOM is consistently at or near the top of the list. The impact factor includes citations from over 30 different journals. The JOM scores include less than 20% self-citations (i.e. citations from JOM to other articles published in JOM), indicating that JOM is widely cited by journals both in OM and other fields. Impact factor trends for JOM and other top OM journals. The journal's greatest need is currently in the area of reviewing. It continues to be a challenge to obtain high quality, on-time reviews for submitted papers. As our submission rate grows, this challenge will also grow. In addition, the growing number of OM journals creates more competition for the time of reviewers. Over this first year of our editorship, potential reviewers have declined the invitation to review nearly 50% of the time. We sometimes must ask as many as eight reviewers in order to secure two to three high quality reviews. This lengthens the review process. Even more important, we see reviewing as a critical issue given that the ultimate quality of the journal depends in large part on the quality of the review process. You may be able to help us with this issue in one of two ways. First, make reviewing a priority. Serving as a reviewer gives you the first look at cutting edge research. It also gives you a significant opportunity to advance the OM field as a whole by sharing your expertise and critical insights with other researchers. If you currently are not a reviewer for JOM, but would like to be, contact us. Second, if you are currently on the JOM review list but do not wish to be, then let us know. We do not want to waste your time with review requests. Help us to become more efficient by removing yourself from the reviewer list if you are unable to serve in this way. On the plus side, the JOM continues to grow as a vital outlet for OM research. In the past 12 months, we have received over 400 paper submissions, representing a 33% increase over prior years. The submissions represent a wide set of operations management issues, integrating a rich set of theoretical perspectives and research methodologies. As editors, we are excited by the growing quality and diversity of the papers that are being submitted. At the 2007 Academy of Management national conference we announced the winners of the annual journal awards. The co-editors selected six candidate papers for the 2006 Best Paper from the six journal issues published in 2006. Then these candidate papers were ranked independently by doctoral students in courses at the University of Minnesota and at York University. The top three papers were distributed to three associate editors for the JOM, who then ranked the papers. In both ranking processes, the participants evaluated the papers using criteria including the quality of the paper's contribution to OM theory, clarity of presentation, and methodological rigor. Each of the best paper winners received a plaque and a cash award ranging from $2500 for the winner to $1250 for each of the finalists. “Evolution in the strategic manufacturing planning process of organizations,” Karen E. Papke-Shields, Manoj K. Malhotra and Varun Grover, Journal of Operations Management 24 (5) (2006) 421–439. “A behavioral study of supply manager decision-making: Factors influencing make versus buy evaluation,” Susan Powell Mantel, Mohan V. Tatikonda and Ying Liao, Journal of Operations Management 24 (6) (2006) 822–838. “Impact of role in the decision to fail: An exploratory study of terminated projects,” David M. Dilts and Ken R. Pence, Journal of Operations Management 24 (4) (2006) 378–396. Our selection of the best AE and reviewers for the 2006 year was based on an analysis of reviews and reviewer performance data provided by the Elsevier Editorial System. In order to qualify for the best reviewer reward, a reviewer had to have completed at least three reviews in the year, with no late reviews. We selected top reviewers from this candidate list based on the quality of the reviews submitted. Each of these reviewers and AEs received a plaque and an honorarium ranging from $200 to $500. Elliot Bendoly, Emory University Craig Carter, University of Nevada Joy Field, Boston College Dan Guide, Pennsylvania State University Patricia Swafford, University of Texas, Arlington Stephane Vachon, HEC Montreal Editorial Board Transitions. Rebecca Duray, University of Colorado Mikko Ketokivi, Helsinki University of Technology Xenophon Koufteros, Florida Atlantic University Michael Lewis, University of Bath Chris McDermott, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Jacob Simons, Georgia Southern University Xiande Zhao, The Chinese University of Hong Kong Par Ahlstrom, Chalmers University of Technology Gopesh Anand, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign Jennifer Blackhurst, Iowa State University Injazz Chen, Cleveland State University Adrian Choo, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Martha Cooper, Air Force Institute of Technology Giovani da Silveira, University of Calgary Joy Field, Boston College Thomas Gattiker, Boise State University Soumen Ghosh, Georgia Institute of Technology Angappa Gunasekaran, University of Massachusetts Hale Kaynak, The University of Texas, Pan American Murat Kristal, York University Cheryl McWatters, University of Alberta Bulent Menguc, Brock University Larry Menor, University of Western Ontario Anand Nair, University of South Carolina Eitan Naveh, Israel Institute of Technology Carol Prahinski, Michigan State University Madeline Pullman, Portland State University Eve Rosenzweig, Emory University Anthony Ross, Michigan State University Subhashish Samaddar, Georgia State University Tobias Schoenherr, Eastern Michigan University Christopher Seow, University of East London Rachna Shah, University of Minnesota Greg Stock, Northern Illinois University Patricia Swafford, University of Texas at Arlington Stephane Vachon, HEC Montréal Zhaohui Wu, Oregon State University In conclusion, we believe the journal is in excellent shape and want to express our deepest appreciation for your participation as authors, reviewers, associate editors and readers. Let's keep up the good work!

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.