Empowering the future of management research through design science:Open letter about design science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this open letter, we call on journal editors to embrace design science (DS) as a core methodology in management and organization research. Rooted in Herbert Simon’s "The Sciences of the Artificial", DS enables scholars to create actionable tools and solutions while advancing theory. It bridges the rigor-relevance gap by focusing on real-world impact. However, despite its success in fields like information systems and operations management, DS remains underrepresented in mainstream management journals. We urge editors to open clear pathways for DS work, such as appointing dedicated editors. By supporting DS, journals can foster research that not only explains the world but helps design better futures for organizations and society. Our open letter also invites other scholars to sign it (on the website where the letter was published).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.141 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.007 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".