Dear colleagues,
Organizational Psychology Review <http://www.uk.sagepub.com/journalsProdDesc.nav?prodId=Journal201979> is a new quarterly, peer-reviewed scholarly journal published by SAGE (first issue published February 2011 – full articles are available at: http://opr.sagepub.com/content/by/year).
Organizational Psychology Review's unique aim is to publish original conceptual work and meta-analyses in the field of organizational psychology (broadly defined to include applied, industrial, occupational, personnel, and work psychology as well as organizational behavior).
CALL FOR REVIEW PROPOSALS
Integrative reviews of the literature that capture the state of the science can make important contributions to the field. Yet, by their very nature of relying heavily on studies that are published already, they also run the risk of moving not enough beyond a summary of the literature to make a real value-added contribution. As a result, the threshold for undertaking a review may be higher than for a conceptual study because the risk looms larger in authors' minds that the conceptual contribution of their review will be judged too modest to warrant publication. To lower this threshold and to stimulate the development of high-quality reviews, OPR issues this Call for Review Proposals. This call makes it possible for authors' to limit their initial investment to a detailed proposal of the intended review and its intended contribution, on the basis of which the editorial team will invite authors of promising proposals to submit the full review paper.
Proposals may concern any area in organizational psychology broadly defined. In preparing the proposal, authors are advised to bear in mind that good reviews should present a clear case for why it is useful to take stock of the state of the science in the particular area – a first issue should be that it is not clear what the state of the science is. Following from this, a good review should not merely observe this problem, but offer a solution in an integration of the literature that makes a value-added conceptual contribution. Related to this, a good review will identify a research agenda guided by its conceptual integration. It would be good to highlight these aspects in particular in proposals submitted in response to this call for proposals.
Proposals for reviews may be submitted (as if they were regular submissions) through the OPR website (http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/opr) throughout 2011 and 2012. Proposals do not compete for a place within a specific issue, and accordingly there is neither one specific submission deadline for proposals (other than that the window to submit proposals closes December 31, 2012) nor one specific submission deadline for the actual review paper should authors be invited to submit based on their proposal (although the editor will suggest a targeted submission date). Rather, proposals will be handled by the editorial team throughout 2011 and 2012 as they come in, and submissions invited based on the proposal likewise will be handled as they become available.
There is no fixed format for review proposals, but proposals should:
(a) clearly define and delineate the topic of the review and explain why taking stock of the state of the science in the area is warranted
(b) present a clear case that the body of research is substantive enough to warrant a review, yet not too large to render a good review overly ambitious
(c) present a clear statement of the intended conceptual contribution of the review
(d) include a proposed timeline for initial submission (i.e., in terms of time needed to submit after an invitation to submit is received)
For further information regarding this call for proposals, please contact Editor-in-Chief Daan van Knippenberg (dvanknippenberg@rsm.nl).
******
Recent authors who have published an article in 2011 at OPR include (but are not limited to):
Derek Avery
Stéphane Côté
Adam Galinsky
Jennifer George
Adam Grant
Filip Lievens
Robert Lord
David Mayer
Deborah Rupp
Jason Shaw
Rolf van Dick