Discussion: View Thread

A strong conceptual and/or theoretical foundation leading to specific, testable study hypotheses in the case of deductive research.  Inductive research is welcome.

A detailed description of the methodology that will be used to collect data and test the proposed hypotheses/research questions. This section must convince the review team that the methodology is very sound (e.g., psychometrically strong measures, adequate manipulations, no confounding factors, adequate statistical power, etc.) and that there is confidence the methodology can be implemented.  This section must also convince the review team that data can be collected within a reasonable timeframe.

An explicit and detailed analysis plan including a specific explanation of how missing data will be treated, how each hypothesis will be tested, and what criteria will be used to evaluate whether data are supportive of hypotheses as relevant.  There should also be a discussion of the potential for exploratory and/or supplementary analyses and how such analyses may be conducted.

This document (approximately 15-25 pages) will be sent to a set of reviewers from the current Journal of Business and Psychology Editorial Board who will provide feedback and reactions to the editor.  The review process will focus on the importance of research question/hypotheses, the ability of the proposed methodology to yield relevant data to test the proposed hypotheses, and the overall methodological rigor of the design and analyses.  If the review team has significant questions about the importance of the research question and/or that the proposed methodology is insufficient, the proposal will be 'rejected.'  To manage workload, the decision letter will be on the shorter side. Alternatively, if the team believes the proposed study will suitably inform the research question and incrementally advance the literature regardless of the specific findings, the project will be given a 'provisional acceptance.'  The acceptance is conditional provided that the 'registered' methodology is actually followed in a reasonable time frame.  For those proposals receiving a 'provisional acceptance,' following data collection and analysis, a full version of the paper will then be submitted for review.  Although the bar is high, this review process means that authors will know that the paper will be accepted whether they observe significant or null results.

It is also possible that a proposal may receive a 'revise and resubmit' decision if the review team believes the study has merit, but would benefit from additional attention directed toward either the conceptual foundation and/or the proposed methodology.  Thus, editorial decisions will be quite similar to decisions made in the traditional format. 

Given the nature of this special feature, papers will be submitted through the journal's online system and authors will indicate that the work is to be evaluated for this special initiative.  Papers may be submitted on an ongoing basis, rather than targeting a specific deadline (common to traditional journal special issues). 

Why Are We Doing This?

Although we are targeting this initiative as grand and important experiment for a year, we are very much open to extending it if it appears successful and authors are attracted to it.

We very much want to publish impactful research, but we also want to more broadly advance our science and address critiques of our science.  We hope this initiative can be a valuable case study for our discipline and other journal editors to consider alternative methods for 'doing science.' 

Process

Submit proposals through the JBP web portal: http://www.editorialmanager.com/jobu/

Indicate upon submission that this is for the special initiative.

Please contact any of the initiative leaders with questions:

Ronald S. Landis, Illinois Institute of Technology (rlandis@iit.edu)

Jose M. Cortina, George Mason University (jcortina@gmu.edu)

Steven G. Rogelberg, University of North Carolina-Charlotte (sgrogelb@uncc.edu)