Editorial

Citation

Richey, G. and Ellinger, A. (2012), "Editorial", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 42 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpdlm.2012.00542aaa.001

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Volume 42, Issue 1

As we write this editorial, we are pleased to report that the first three quarters of 2011 have been quite amazing for International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management (IJPDLM). Submissions are at an all-time high in the journals 40-year history and the large majority of manuscripts received have been of extremely good quality. It is a wonderful situation to serve all of you who make up this truly global research community. We anticipate an amazing 200 submissions via the ScholarOne Manuscript Central portal by the end of 2011. Additionally, we have yet to integrate all of the special issue manuscripts into the electronic system. These manuscripts account for another 150+ submissions. Simple math indicates that we are tracking towards a 10-12 percent acceptance rate at IJPDLM for 2011. We have been very pleased with the quality of these submissions and thus have had to desk reject less than 10 percent of manuscripts received. In contrast to many editors, we feel very positive about the low-desk rejection rate at IJPDLM because it is an indication of the great strides that our global author constituency is making to improve strategic supply chain management and logistics (SCML) research. Additionally, we believe the IJPDLM review process should be developmental, both in terms of assisting young authors to learn the ropes of publishing world-class research (especially in emerging programs and countries) and in improving papers that make a contribution, even if ultimately the paper is more suitable for a different journal in the field. In our view, fostering a high-desk rejection rate for the sake of the statistic does nothing to help the field.

Given these developments we now have a high-class problem – we need more help from you in producing quality reviews for the unprecedented number of submissions being received. Please know that we respect your time and are well aware of the level of effort required to craft a quality review. We therefore endeavor to research both the content of the manuscript and your past work across all SCML journals to find a “match” before assigning any review to any reviewer. This practice should allow us to minimize the instances where invited reviewers decline a review request. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Quite often prospective reviewers are choosing the “decline” link in our initial e-mail query. Sometimes this happens within minutes of us sending out the e-mail request to the reviewer! Please let us know via e-mail if there is a glaring mismatch – but if not – please do all you can to accept the reviews we send you. We will not abuse the service-based collegiality and benevolence you offer to IJPDLM as we strive to improve the quality of this […] your journal.

Best in class reviewing

Best in class reviews are extremely important to the growth and credibility of IJPDLM and we award several best in class reviewers each year. Since IJPDLM publishes more manuscripts (40+) than all the other SCML journals (with the exception of our sister journal Supply Chain Management: An International Journal), our two-reviewer double blind review policy (always including at least one non-North American reviewer) is the most efficient and equitable of any journal in our field. However, using fewer reviewers than other journals (and no associate editors) means that we must rely on the two assigned reviewers to be very thorough. By best in class we mean helpful, detailed, specific, and collegial. Best in class IJPDLM reviewers undertake the important tasks of filling out the preset ScholarOne boxes, making summary suggestions to both the authors and editors, and attaching an additional word document that provides critical detail to the authors concerning manuscript improvement. The preset boxes on ScholarOne are intended to provide an initial overview, which helps the editors to make a decision. Best in class reviewers also typically use the following format on a separate document at review submission:

1. 1.

   Opening. Why should anyone read this article? (Purpose and intention of the study.)

2. 2.

   Quality. Is the study state of the art in terms of quality?

   • •

     (a) Is the manuscript grounded in theory?

   • •

     (b) Is the extant research tied in and sufficient?

   • •

     (c) Are all terms and constructs defined?

   • •

     (d) Are all the relevant articles cited – especially those published in this journal?

3. 3.

   Presentation. Does the contribution matter now and will it in the future?

   • •

     (a) Does the manuscript advance the field via:

     • •

       (i) Fine tuning past knowledge?

     • •

       (ii) Breaking ground on new theory or ideas?

   • •

     (b) Is the technique used to do so adequate and appropriate?

     • •

       (i) New or modified theory?

     • •

       (ii) New or modified method?

     • •

       (iii) Report on empirical discovery?

     • •

       (iv) Review of past literature?

     • •

       (v) Replication?

     • •

       (vi) Other(s)?

   • •

     (c) Hypotheses: Are the research questions asked in a testable manner?

     • •

       (i) Is the argument adequately formed and developed?

     • •

       (ii) Is the claimed direction supported by research?

     • •

       (iii) Is there a logical progression from theory to questions to the generation of results?

   • •

     (d) Testing

     • •

       (i) Is the operationalization appropriate?

     • •

       (ii) Is the sampling and data collection rigorous?

     • •

       (iii) Is the data analysis technique correctly selected, applied, interpreted?

     • •

       (iv) Is the research design sound and well executed?

     • •

       (v) Does the model flow from specification, to estimation, to testing, to results?

     • •

       (vi) Are the proper control variables included?

     • •

       (vii) Are psychometric conventions followed and reported?

     • •

       (viii) Are the data being stretched too far?

   • •

     (e) Results

     • •

       (i) Is the discussion adequate?

     • •

       (ii) Are the proper outcomes reported (correlations, fit, means, weight, etc.)?

     • •

       (iii) Are non-examined issues and constructs excluded from the discussion?

   • •

     (f) Conclusion

     • •

       (i) Are the interpretations appropriate and detailed?

     • •

       (ii) Are the assumptions and limitations noted?

     • •

       (iii) Are the managerial implications implementable and detailed?

     • •

       (iv) Are the future research directions detailed, advancing the field and opening avenues for work that will cite IJPDLM and this manuscript?

   • •

     (g) Style

     • •

       (i) Is the manuscript interesting to the current readership?

     • •

       (ii) Does the manuscript make an important contribution?

     • •

       (iii) Is the writing:

       • •

         (1) Formatted correctly for IJPDLM?

       • •

         (2) Logically transparent, understandable, and lively?

       • •

         (3) Grammatically correct?

     • •

       (iv) Are the citations complete in the both the body and references?

IJPDLM reviewers are encouraged to use this outline, but to know that not every question will apply to every manuscript. For example, qualitative, quantitative and case-based research would each differ to some degree in their impacts on items (c) and (d) above.

Please contact us by e-mail (ijpdlm@cba.ua.edu) to let us know if you are willing to review for IJPDLM and we will invite you to set up a reviewer account on ScholarOne. We are dependent on your academic organizational citizenship to help us continue to serve you in the timely manner that best in class authors deserve.

Manuscripts in this issue

The manuscripts in this issue were reviewed using styles similar to the technique above. Each is an example of a very important SCML area where future research is highly encouraged. The first manuscript, written by Benjamin T. Hazen and Terry Anthony Byrd of Auburn University in the USA, titled “Toward creating competitive advantage with logistics information technology” is a meta-analysis of 48 past studies in the area of logistics information technology (LIT). The paper examines the adoption of EDI and RFID technological artifacts by supply chain members. Summary findings connote that the adoption of LIT promotes enhanced levels of effectiveness, efficiency, and resiliency for firms given the quality of the buyer-supplier relationship.

The second and third manuscripts examine the timely and increasingly important issues of sustainability and risk, respectively. Fredrik Eng-Larsson and Christofer Kohn of Lund University and McKinsey & Co. in Sweden examine the “Modal shift for greener logistics – the shipper’s perspective”. Using a case-based method, the authors uncover contextual factors and operational changes that relate to finding a “greener” fit for firms within the evolving logistics process. This manuscript provides an excellent jumping off point through its propositions for research. Next, Daniel Kern, Roger Moser, Evi Hartmann, and Marco Moder of Friedrich Alexander University and European Business School in Germany present a detailed assessment of risk in “Supply risk management: model development and empirical analysis”. This continuous improvement-based model examines the role and importance of risk identification, assessment and mitigation in predicting performance. Sampling 162 firms, the analysis links these important steps in our discipline’s first ever large-scale empirical study examining the process dimensions of upstream supply chain risk management.

Finally, Michael Maloni, Craig R. Carter, and Lutz Kaufmann at Georgia State University and Arizona State University in the USA and WHU in Germany bring their long running assessment of logistics program research productivity to its new home in IJPDLM. We are certain that “Author affiliation in supply chain management and logistics journals: 2008-2010” will be widely read by the strategic SCML community. Their analysis details a list of the most productive research schools worldwide and the study presents some new surprises in terms of up and coming research programs. In addition to the approach traditionally employed in previous versions of this ongoing research endeavor, the authors have responded to the consistent requests from the reviewers and editors by providing rankings for both the leading strategic SCML journals alone (e.g. JBL, IJLM, IJPDLM and SCMJ) as well as for these four SCML and transportation journals combined (TR:E and TJ). The additional analysis was included because the transportation journals are classified by ISI Web of Science in a different category to the classification of the SCML journals and are largely targeted by a sub-segment of the schools included in the study. It is our hope that Michael Maloni, Craig R. Carter and Lutz Kaufmann will continue this important work and consider including the two other SCML journals (SCM:IJ and IJLRA) in future examinations as these six journals are representative of the full set of globally accepted peer group of strategic SCML journals included in the Web of Science database.

Glenn Richey, Alex Ellinger