Teaching Innovations in Management Education Research Journals: Reflecting on JME’s Journey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a world fraught with Grand Challenges, there is a renewed urgency in innovating in both what and how we teach. Teaching innovations (TI) are a vital aspect of our scholarly impact. In this paper, we explore how the maturation of the field and the calls for increased rigor have influenced TI articles. First, we examined the evolution of JME’s editorial policy regarding TI. We find that two major requirements for TI articles have been gradually emphasized: a stronger grounding in the literature, and more robust evidence of effectiveness. Second, we explored how current TI articles have responded to these requirements, by analyzing the TI articles published in JME from 2014 to 2023. While some attempts to meet these new requirements were observed, our findings indicate that the literature could be more fully leveraged and that the evidence of effectiveness presented remains weak. We argue that JME should explicitly affirm its identity as a research journal, which would require that TI articles adopt a research mindset. We outline the overall characteristics of this research mindset, along with specific requirements as they apply to TI articles. Implications for the community, TI articles, and JME are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".