The value of credibility in publishing, reflections on our transparency policy, and news about AOM and our cover contest
Featuring essays from Christine Beckman, András Tilcsik, Stéphane Côté, and Erin Reid. Plus celebrating the winner of our photo contest, Mohammed Bendaanane!
Join us at our reception in AOM 2025!
On July 1, Christine Beckman and András Tilcsik will step down as editor and deputy editor of ASQ. Their years-long dedication to the journal has been extraordinary, and we thank them for devoting countless hours to keeping this operation running smoothly and to navigating challenges and opportunities for growth with wisdom and acumen. Thank you, Christine and András!
Our new editor, Beth Bechky, and new deputy editor, Adam Kleinbaum, are already fully engaged with ASQ’s operations and are ready to take the helm on July 1. Please join us in welcoming them warmly into these roles! Their deep knowledge of the journal and the field will serve them—and all of us—well.
If you are attending the AOM annual meeting in Copenhagen, we invite you to join us at our annual reception, which will give you the chance to thank Christine and to welcome Beth and Adam.
This reception for our authors, editorial board members, reviewers, and other friends of the journal will take place on Sunday, July 27 from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. in the Crowne Plaza Everest 2, lower ground floor. It is a time to celebrate everyone who is part of our vibrant community.
At the reception, Beth will present two awards whose winners will be kept confidential until that time:
The ASQ Award for Scholarly Contribution, which will go to the author(s) of the paper published in ASQ five years ago judged to have made the greatest scholarly contribution.
The ASQ Dissertation Award, which will go to the sole or lead author of an article based on dissertation data and research that was published in an ASQ issue in 2024 and best exemplifies the criteria for publication in ASQ.
We hope you will join us at the AOM reception as we celebrate our past and look toward an exciting future!
Academic Values and ASQ: Credibility
By Christine Beckman (Editor) and András Tilcsik (Deputy Editor)
Having spent a collective two decades of our lives in editorial roles, we are often asked, “Why is this how you spend your time?” It’s a fair question. There are so many pressing problems in the world that deserve attention; after enduring COVID-19, we see escalating climate disasters, widening economic inequality, persistent racial and class injustices, rising misinformation and disinformation, rapid technological disruption, mass migration, deepening societal mental health challenges, democratic erosion, and growing political instability. And this question isn’t just about editorial work; it is a broader question of how all of us as scholars spend our time. The day in and day out of academic lives is often consumed by an endless stream of seemingly small tasks—prepping for class, faculty committee meetings, office hours with students—all while trying to find time to write, to analyze, to think. Christine’s daughter, in her second year as a Ph.D. student, recently texted, “Too many tasks to do. I am sad I will feel this way until May. Or maybe for the rest of my life.”
These posts are our attempt to answer the question of why we have spent so many hours doing editorial work – given the many demands on our time. We embarked on our academic journeys because we wanted a deeper understanding of the world, to play with “little ideas” (a Jim March phrase), to help understand and even solve some of the pressing social problems we see. This is a calling, not just a job. As March argued, we shouldn’t lose sight “of the fundamental nature of the educational soul” (March, 2018: 356). Journals play an important role in this academic journey – they help to curate, cultivate, certify, and convene scholarship.
This month, we tackle the certifying role of journals (having tackled curating and cultivating in earlier posts). Confidence in journal articles is engendered by the certifying process. We are more likely to see articles as credible and trustworthy if they make it through a vigorous peer review process. These are not perfect processes: Manuscripts with significant weakness get published, and stellar papers can be rejected. But, by and large, we expect journals to uphold certain standards of evidence. Especially when the credibility of academic science is questioned, journals’ efforts to increase transparency are essential to maintaining trust. This is an ongoing process, not an end state, as scientific knowledge is under constant revision along with our means of assessing knowledge claims (Giddens, 1990). These certifying efforts are not only about ensuring that methods are transparent and credible but also about educating scholars regarding what that means and how to do it. This is more challenging than it sounds given the different methodological traditions within organizational research, not to mention the very strong differences in opinion about what is reasonable and what should be expected.
The ideal of embracing a variety of methods as a strength and goal of administrative science has been part of ASQ’s history (Boulding, 1958; Daft, 1980). Today, over 30 percent of submissions to ASQ are qualitative manuscripts (this includes ethnographies, interview-based methods, and manuscripts using historical or archival data as primary data sources). When we look at award-winning papers, we see the balance of qualitative and quantitative papers achieving near parity. Less than 5 percent of submissions to ASQ are pure theory papers.
The credibility of papers across methods has been an area of focus at ASQ. In addition to an essay devoted to transparency in qualitative methods (Pratt et al., 2020), we have developed a data and methods transparency policy with expectations for both qualitative and quantitative methods. This policy requires authors to outline their approach to transparency at submission and to follow through upon acceptance. The policy reflects two core commitments: supporting authors and ensuring the credibility of published research. While no policy can guarantee trustworthiness, transparency strengthens the foundation of rigorous scholarship and enhances scholars’ ability to build on prior work. Authors using statistical or computational methods are expected to post their data and code unless there is a compelling reason not to, while qualitative researchers are asked to provide details on data collection, analysis, and the link between data and findings. Below, associate editors Stéphane Côté and Erin Reid offer some reflections and guidance on transparency in submissions now that we have almost a year of experience with our new data transparency policy.
We also rely on a Methods Advisory Panel to offer additional feedback on the soundness of a paper’s methods. Methodological expectations change quickly, and new methods are constantly being developed. The Methods Advisory Panel complements the expertise of our editorial team and helps ASQ stay abreast of new methods and norms.
Stay tuned next month for our take on the importance of convening at ASQ.
Why Do We Have a Transparency Policy, and How Does It Support Researchers?
By Stéphane Côté (Associate Editor) & Erin Reid (Associate Editor)
Last year, ASQ instituted a Data and Methods Transparency Policy and Guidelines. As members of the editorial team, we sometimes get questions about this policy—why we instituted it, and how it is working out. So we'd like to take this opportunity to explain why and how we developed it, and why we believe it is helpful for ASQ authors.
Why and how we developed the policy. ASQ developed the transparency policy in part in response to methodological advances in the field, and as part of a broader movement towards openness about data and methods. Research has illuminated, for instance, the benefits of distinguishing between exploration and confirmation (Wagenmakers, Wetzels, Borsboom, van der Maas, & Kievit, 2012), and of pre-registering plans for methods and analysis when appropriate (Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2021). As scholars, we also simply learn a great deal from understanding how other researchers designed their studies. As transparency is a core value for ASQ, the editorial team decided to formally incorporate these advances in our processes.
In developing the policy, we consulted with experts, including members of our Methods Advisory Panel, on best practices for the field for both qualitative and quantitative research. We also attended to and took cues from the kinds of questions that reviewers often raise during the review process. The resulting policy makes expectations for transparency around data and methods clear, enabling the review process to focus on the substance of the manuscript.
We believe the policy has led to a better process for authors, reviewers, and editors in the following ways:
Authors and reviewers better understand common expectations. Before implementation of the policy, expectations for transparency in an initial submission were unclear. Authors often figure out what to share about their study in an initial submission by examining back issues of the journal. Indeed, we're taught to examine "exemplar papers" in graduate school for guidance on writing, demonstrating evidence, and explaining theoretical contributions. Taking the same approach when figuring out what to share about data and methods is reasonable. The issue that authors run into is that norms around what is shared about methods and data have changed dramatically over the years, and have also varied across subfields of organization and management studies. So, different exemplar papers might provide quite different guidance. The policy clarifies that transparency and trustworthiness are key criteria in editorial decisions at ASQ. To increase their chances of a favorable review, authors can verify that their manuscript contains the elements listed in the policy.
In cutting-edge areas of organizational research in which new theory is developed, results may rarely be perfect or definitive. Our policy clarifies that authors can advance knowledge about important questions by sharing positive, negative, or null results. The policy communicates that especially if the research is transparent, results do not need to be perfect to make an important contribution.
The policy also clarifies what reviewers and editors can expect in an initial submission, to help address inconsistency in what reviewers consider necessary to see, and to clarify for editors (who are sometimes tasked with handling papers outside our methodological domains) the characteristics of a transparent manuscript using an unfamiliar method. The policy simplifies the review process by setting out some common expectations.
Authors receive more helpful (and often more favorable) feedback. We noticed that novice authors, in particular, often submitted papers that simply didn't share as much about their studies as is currently expected by reviewers. For these authors, this led to an initial set of reviewer comments that included concerns about transparency and the extent to which it was possible to believe the findings without knowing much more about the research. By contrast, authors who shared much more about their research from the get-go received reviews that focused more on the substance of their research—both the findings and theoretical contributions. These latter types of reviews tended not only to be more helpful but also to be more positive about the paper's eventual publishability.
Authors enjoy a more equitable process. By making expectations clear around transparency, we also hope that the policy helps promote fairness for authors: All authors, regardless of the training and mentoring they have previously received, know what to include in an initial submission and what they will need to post (if possible) if their paper is accepted. For a qualitative study, this includes, for instance, information on when the research was conducted; an interview protocol (if interviews were conducted); and participant identifiers in the write-up of findings. For a quantitative study, this includes the data set, code for analysis, and surveys/materials. By sharing this kind of information, authors can help ensure that their reviews focus on the substance of the research, rather than the background details.
Reviewers can focus on the substance of the paper. We also hope this policy makes the reviewing experience a more enjoyable and rewarding one. ASQ reviewers put a lot of time and effort into evaluating research, and we hope that when submissions include essential data and methods information from the start, reviewers can focus their attention on the strengths of the study and opportunities to further develop it. After all, appreciating each other’s research on organizations and organizing, and helping each other improve it, is central to what we do at ASQ.
Readers trust conclusions of ASQ papers more. Transparency about data, where it came from, and how it was analyzed helps readers better evaluate the conclusions and the extent to which they are reasonable, for both inductive and confirmatory research. Such clarity benefits not only the field but also authors, whose work can be regarded as trustworthy. For instance, the policy helps guard against shallow post-publication critiques in articles or on social media. ASQ authors put an enormous amount of effort into gathering and selecting the best data, and analyzing it in the most rigorous way possible. Transparency in a paper's methods makes that effort apparent, documenting the rigour of the work for future readers. Further, we expect that researchers will be more motivated to extend and/or apply research that they trust, enhancing the future impact of ASQ papers.
Although our sense is that the review process is more generative for authors with the new policy, one might worry that this policy would have negative effects. We have not seen this. Since we implemented the policy, the number of submissions received and the proportion of revisions offered have not changed. Thus far, the policy does not seem to have had any negative impact on the review process. And, for the reasons outlined above, we are hopeful that it has resulted in a more rewarding review experience for both authors and reviewers, and is helping authors develop strong and trustworthy papers.
References
Simmons, J., D Nelson, L., & Simonsohn, U. (2021). Pre‐registration: Why and how. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31, 151-162.
Wagenmakers, E. J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., van der Maas, H. L., & Kievit, R. A. (2012). An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 632-638.
Results from our cover contest!
And the selected cover is… the sunflowers photo by Mohammed Bendaanane! Congratulations!
In our recent open call, we invited you—our readers—to help choose the next ASQ cover photo. We were thrilled by your enthusiasm and the many votes cast.
We’re excited to announce that the winning image—the vibrant sunflowers photo—will appear on the cover of our September issue. Thank you to everyone who participated.
And stay tuned: We hope to feature some of the other submitted photos in future issues and communications as well.
This is what makes ASQ great: the community that reads, reviews, contributes, and cares deeply about shaping the journal together, from its covers to its conclusions!