Some announcements, reaffirming the critical ethos of Leadership, and what we look for in submissions

Abstract

This editorial begins with a number of announcements and then considers how the journal and the community of scholars who edit it, write for it, review for it and read it can continue to collectively move it forward. I hope this gives contributors a clearer idea of the journal's orientation, and in doing so offers some useful insights into how authors might improve their chances of a paper being published in Leadership.We start with news of an editorial transition. Brad Jackson, my co-editor for over the past year, has decided to step down from this role. Brad has been Head of the School of Government at Victoria University since the beginning of 2014. He has concluded that it is impossible for him to do so while continuing to support Leadership in the way that he would like. I want to acknowledge Brad's huge contribution to the journal, thank him for his work and wish him well in his current role. Brad will continue to serve the journal as an Associate Editor. Victoria University of Wellington will continue to serve as administrative host for the journal with Amanda Cunningham acting as our Editorial Coordinator. Now for some better news. I am delighted to announce that Professor Jackie Ford from Bradford University School of Management has agreed to join us as an Associate Editor. Jackie has published frequently in our journal and provided consistently high quality reviews over the years. She joins our excellent team of Michelle Bligh, Richard Bolden, Brigid Carroll, Donna Ladkin and now Brad Jackson. Each of our associate editors will be more directly involved in handling submissions, with responsibility for making final decisions on many of our papers. In welcoming Jackie to the team, I want to thank all of our AEs for their support over the past year. Without them, this journal would not be as remotely well placed as it now is.A reflection of our progress is that we are receiving a growing volume of papers to review. In 2014, submissions increased by 31% on the previous year. Our acceptance rate is 14%. Clearly, many authors have come to see Leadership as a high quality outlet where they are delighted to publish their work. The journal is also attracting more and more readers.

Publication Anxiety, Quality, and Journal Rankings: Researcher Views

“…In particular, that journal ranking systems are contributing to pressure to publish and publication anxiety (Tijdink et al, 2013) and that most academics surveyed feel they have insufficient time to undertake their research (Kinman & Jones, 2003). Further, the findings also provide empirical support for the assertion that ranking systems have inhibiting effects on innovative, risky research and encourage safe, conforming mainstream orthodoxy (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013;Lincoln, 2012;Macdonald & Kam, 2007;Ozbilgin, 2009;Powell & Woerndl, 2008;Tourish, 2015;van Dalen & Henkens, 2012). The findings also support allegations in the literature that regional, cross-disciplinary (McNay, 1998;Rafols, Leydesdorff, O'Hare, Nightingale, & Stirling, 2012) and qualitative research is threatened (Lincoln 2012, Chen andHirschheim 2004).…”

“…IS has been accused of having a North American bias (Gallivan & Benbunan-Fich, 2007) and that North American authors predominate in the top journals (Truex, Cuellar, & Takeda, 2009, Keller & Coulthard, 2013. Indeed, Tourish (2015) has identified that 31 out of the top 33 journals in the rankings produced by the Association of Business Schools in the UK were of US origin. Research in information systems is highly contextual.…”

“…Arguably the most serious allegations are the 'end of important work' (Powell & Woerndl, 2008;Tourish, 2015) and the rise of 'incrementalism' (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013;Lincoln, 2012). Essentially, the argument is that academics will begin to research areas that they think are publishable, less risky, with good publishable returns for effort rather than in areas that are theoretically important but may be difficult, time consuming, or risky.…”

“…This establishes a form of institutionalisation of middle range theories or scripts such that subsequent scholars tinker with the theory and produce a vast body of incremental research that produces publishable work and career security. (Grover & Lyytinen, 2015, p. 275) of lower ranked journals is reduced and thus ranking systems may act to reduce the diversity of journals and promote orthodoxy (Tourish, 2015). For example, Macdonald and Kam (2007) warn that top journals in management studies encourage 'homogenous research' that 'can impose a deadening uniformity on its field of endeavour' (Harley and Lee, 1997, p. 1434cited in MacDonald & Kam 2007.…”

“…The answer appears gloomy. Published opinion uniformly warn that journal rankings and in particular their coupling to performance management will harm research and in particular will stymie innovation and heighten conformity and 'incrementalist' research within the disciplines (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013;Lincoln, 2012;Macdonald & Kam, 2007;Ozbilgin, 2009;Powell & Woerndl, 2008;Tourish, 2015;van Dalen & Henkens, 2012).…”