| Journal
of Organizational Behavior Management
Guidelines for Publication Sections
•Download
Word document of these guidelines
Manuscripts
submitted to the journal may be reviewed for possible publication
within one of the following journal sections. Authors submitting
manuscripts to the journal must specify which of the below
categories their submission best fits into for purposes of
review and potential publication. Articles appearing in these
sections reflect various research and practical aims and the
review process for each section reflects these aims:
•Research Articles
•Research Reports
•Reports from the Field
•Discussion Articles
•Comment Articles
•Book Reviews
•A Note for Reviewers
Research Articles
The Journal of Organizational Behavior Management’s
primary mission is to publish articles that promote scientific
research in OBM. Scientific research methods and procedures
permit researchers to identify and change selected independent
variables expected to produce changes in dependent variables
related to the performance of people in organizations and
attribute changes in performance to the independent variable(s)
by effectively controlling for potentially confounding variables.
For example, eliminating confounding variables as potential
causes of performance changes other than the independent variable(s)
manipulated requires use of a comparison group, ABAB reversal
and/or multiple baseline experimental designs. In addition
to effective use of experimental designs, Research Articles should include
evidence regarding the means by which integrity of each independent
variable was assessed and must include evidence regarding the
means by which each dependent variable was assessed and achieved.
Therefore, papers that might qualify as Research Articles will
undergo a full peer-review by as many as 5 scholars to ensure
that they qualify as properly controlled studies of meaningful
organizational applications. Controlled experimental analog-based
assessments and examinations of behavioral processes that
might lead to understanding of or account for relative success
of organizational interventions under field conditions will
also qualify as Research
Articles. For example, the relative effects of differing
levels of feedback frequency on individual or group performance,
that might be impossible to assess in the field, might well
be functionally related to performance within a work simulation
or laboratory analog of an organizational task and its context.
Experimentally sound replications and extensions of previous
work are also acceptable as Research Articles. Research
Articles are expected to range from 20-40 double-spaced
pages, not including figures.
Checklist for reviewers:
- Clear description of problem and research literature
- Clear description of experimental methods
- 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
Back
to top
Research Reports
Submissions for Research Reports require less detailed
descriptions of background, methodology, or findings than Research
Articles. Research Reports provide contributors
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
so the author 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 standards of experimental rigor required for Research
Articles.
Research Reports describing
follow-up data to a previously published project will also
be considered for publication. In this case, authors 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, not
only in JOBM), clearly describe the procedures
used to produce maintenance, and clearly describe and discuss
the maintenance 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 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 an independent variable’s integrity,
high face validity of the variables might, nevertheless,
be sufficient to support publication of the data. 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.
Checklist for 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 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
- Reliability of dependent variable
- Clear discussion of results
- Not held to the same rigorous standards as are Research
Articles
Back
to top
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 for this reason; 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.
Checklist for 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
Back
to top
Discussion Articles
Manuscripts that develop foundations of behavior analysis or
critically review a particular areas 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.
Back
to top
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.
Back
to top
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.
Back
to top
A Note for Reviewers
Reviewers
will be asked to review a given manuscript by considering
it for one of the above-described categories. In
so doing, reviewers will be expected to use respectful
language that fosters an environment of learning
through constructive and positive feedback. Reviews not adhering
to these standards of professionalism may not be
included by the Action Editor for the manuscript. In addition,
reviewers will be asked to clearly classify their
disposition of the manuscript by assigning it to one of the
following categories:
Accept as-is
Accept
with revisions
Reject and Resubmit to JOBM
Reject/Submit
elsewhere
|