Instructions for Contributors - Formats and Submissions (125 KB).

Instructions for Contributors - Commentary Guidelines (96 KB).

IOP Practice Forum Submission Guidelines (120 KB).

To view the PDF file linked above, you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader.

Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice

Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice is an official publication of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP).

Formats and Submissions

The novel format of the journal focuses on an interactive exchanges on topics of importance to science and practice in our field. The journal takes a focal article–peer commentary format. A focal article is a position paper on an important issue for the field (or potentially a pair of papers taking opposite sides in a debate). Such a focal article might summarize evidence on an issue and take a position as to implications for science, practice, or public policy. The paper might focus on a basic science issue, an applied science issue, a practice issue, or a public policy issue; many would be a blend. The focal article is then followed by a series of peer commentaries. These could challenge or critique the original article, expand on issues not addressed in the focal article, or draw out implications not developed in the focal article. The goal is to include commentaries from various perspectives, including science, practice, and international perspectives. Focal Articles can be submitted at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/iopsych

Members will receive e-mail notification from SIOP when each focal article is made available on the SIOP web site, and interested parties can submit a commentary via https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/iopsych for consideration for publication. We’re eager to get as broad a range of perspectives and reactions as possible. Commentary submissions are peer reviewed.

Author submission guides may be found here: http://mchelp.manuscriptcentral.com/gethelpnow/training/author/. The journal’s Instructions for Contributors may be found here: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/industrial-and-organizational-psychology/information/instructions-contributors.

Individuals with ideas for a potential focal article they would like to write or with ideas about topics they would like to see addressed in the journal can contact Editor Ron Landis at rlandis@iit.edu.

Last updated 16^th May 2018

Commentary guidelines:

Purpose:

The goal of the focal article - commentary format is to advance the field by providing a forum for varying perspectives on the topic under consideration. A commentary may be:

a) a critical challenge to one or more aspects of the focal article, arguing for a position other than that taken in the focal article;

b) an elaboration or extension of the position taken in the focal article, basically sympathetic to the position taken in the focal article, but pushing the argument further;

c) an application of a theoretical perspective that sheds light on the issues addressed in the focal article;

d) a reflection on the writer’s experiences in applying the issues addressed in the focal article in particular organizational settings;

e) a comment on applicability of the issues raised in the focal article to other settings, or to other cultures;

f) a comment with a focus other than those listed above.

Length:

We envision comments as one to five journal pages in length, which sets 10 manuscript pages as a rough upper limit. A discussion with the editor is called for if an author sees a need for a longer commentary.

Based on experience to date, most commentaries should require less than 10 pages. In the interests of including as a wide a range of perspectives as possible, the editor will place a great premium on tight and concise writing. A tightly argued 3-5 page commentary is likely to be better received than a meandering 10 page commentary.

Style Guidelines:

1. Do not summarize the focal article. Assume the reader has just read the focal article and say four other commentaries before getting to yours. Move directly to identifying the key issues you want to raise (e.g., "X overlooked two key issues," or "We explore further the implications of X’s conclusion about issue Y"). Of course you may restate the specific issue that you are addressing. But there’s no need to say "X addresses A, B, and C; in this commentary we focus on C".

2. Do not include general praise for the focal article ("X has done the field a great service by summarizing this literature," or "There is much to admire in X’s article, namely, A, B, and C"). There is a tendency for commentators to want to start with a paragraph or two of general praise before getting down to business. Across multiple commentaries this takes up a lot of space.

3. Use only essential citations. There are stylistic differences in scientific writing; some like to cite extensively; others less so. For commentary purposes, cite only works absolutely essential to support your point. Going as light as possible on references provides more space for commentaries.

4. Use a short title that emphasizes your key message. Do not use "A Reply to X" as either the title or subtitle. It will be clear in context that all commentaries are a reply to a particular paper.

5. Do not include an abstract.

6. Make sure there is full author info (name, affiliation, address, phone, email) for all authors. Authors must be individuals (e.g., a paper cannot be listed as authored by "the XYZ Group"). We must know who the authors are, and the authors must assign copyright to SIOP prior to publication.

Review:

Commentaries will be peer reviewed; it is expected that some will be accepted and some rejected. Criteria for acceptance include clarity and coherence of the position espoused, technical soundness, and reviewer judgment as to the degree to which the commentary contributes to greater insight and understanding of the topic.

One point of note is that a small set of reviewers read and evaluates all commentaries. Reviewers need to compare commentaries for issues of redundancy and to make evaluations of relative merit (e.g., given journal page constraints, which commentaries are strongest?). Given these demands on reviewers, the level of detail of reviewer comments will typically be far less than that received for typical journal submission.

One issue meriting special attention is redundancy. It is possible that two authors may submit highly similar commentaries. This creates difficulties, as both may be of high quality. We will use a variety of strategies in such a circumstance. These include editing one section of a broad commentary to eliminate the section redundant with another commentary, and working with the authors to pool their efforts and produce a joint commentary.

Tone:

While a commentary may be critical of a focal article, it is important to maintain a respectful tone that is critical of ideas, not of authors.

Timing:

There is a relatively short time window for the preparation of commentaries; this may be as short as 30 days. This is driven by journal production schedules.

Queries for the Editor:

Authors should feel free to correspond with the editor prior to submitting a commentary if there are questions about any aspect of the commentary process. Authors may prepare a brief outline of the key points they want to make in the commentary and send it to the editor. While not in a position to commit to a commentary prior to peer review, the editor can comment on whether other commentaries have been submitted or proposed making the same points.

Submission:

submissions should be made via https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/iopsych and should be in the form of a Word document.

Please contact Editor Ron Landis, via email with any questions.

Practice Forum guidelines:

Please see separate IOP Practice Forum Submission Guidelines.

Copyright:

Any material subject to copyright restrictions other than those owned or controlled by the contributor must be accompanied by appropriate permissions from the relevant copyright holder(s). Upon acceptance of their contribution, authors will be asked to assign copyright to the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Any potential conflict of copyrights for previously published works on which submissions are based must be clearly notified to the Editors via email at the time of submission or as soon as possible thereafter.

Proofs:

Only essential typographical or factual errors may be changed at proof stage. Any major revisions or substantive additions to the text at proofs stage will be disregarded, unless prior consent has been given by the publisher. The publisher reserves the right to charge authors for correction of non-typographical errors.

Offprints:

No paper offprints are provided, but authors will be provided with an electronic pdf file of their published article for their personal use subject to the conditions of the Copyright Assignment form. Print offprints may be purchased at cost at proof stage.

Open Access:

Please visit www.cambridge.org/core/services/open-access-policies for information on our open access policies, compliance with major funding bodies, and guidelines on depositing your manuscript in an institutional repository.

(Last updated 16^th May 2018)

Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology

Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice (IOP)

IOP Practice Forum Submission Guidelines

Purpose

The purpose of the IOP Practice Forum is to advance the understanding of effective practice of industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology through the publication of original manuscripts focusing on I-O practice issues. The Forum provides practitioners with an outlet for communicating and/or learning about current trends, lessons-learned, best practices, effective practice principles, relevant issues, different points of view, and implementation challenges, associated with practice in I-O psychology. The Forum will consider articles that focus on I-O practice areas including, but not limited to: training and development, job analysis and competency modeling, recruitment and selection, performance management, career development, organization development, attitude/engagement surveys, change management, legal issues, testing and assessment, succession planning, health and well-being, and work-life balance.

Content of Practice Forum Articles

The Practice Forum will accommodate a range of different types of articles. These formats may include:

A case study highlighting an effective use of a new I-O psychology tool or technology (e.g., in-depth description of a client engagement that highlights the innovative use of an I-O product or service, outlining the situation, actions taken, results achieved, and lessons-learned; specific requests for additional recommendations or research could be offered as well).

Traditional articles on an important I-O psychology practice issue (e.g., description of a critical practice topic in the I-O field and discussion of practice-oriented implications, toward the goal of helping practitioners understand the topic, how it can be utilized, and the risks and benefits of doing so).

Critiques, debates, and/or commentaries on cutting edge or controversial practice-oriented topics (e.g., description of a new I-O practice, compared and contrasted with traditional practice methods, outlining the benefits and risks and discussing best practice recommendations; could be supplemented with authors debating/commenting on different aspects of the topic, such as theoretical underpinnings, relative effectiveness to organizations and individuals, and illustrations of impact).

Discussion of challenging or emerging practice issues accompanied with specific calls for assistance and research from the academic field (e.g., description of one or more emerging trends, such as requests for new services or products, or new regulations that impact I-O work, or discussion of specific practice-oriented challenges being faced in the workplace; specific recommendations could be developed with input from other authors, and/or specific research questions or hypotheses could be outlined).

Dilemmas faced when practicing I-O psychology and how those might be overcome (e.g., description of various types of "real world" obstacles, barriers, or challenging situations faced when implementing an I-O service or product, the impact of the situation on one’s ability to deliver effective consulting, and steps taken to overcome the challenges and deliver quality services to the client).

Summaries of key takeaways from the Leading Edge Consortium (LEC) (e.g., detailed description of the topic, summaries of select presentations, and key points and tips for practitioners to apply the lessons-learned in their work; input from LEC participants could be used to provide content for the article).

Review of practitioner forum takeaways from the SIOP Annual Conference (e.g., listing of popular practice-oriented sessions and themes from the annual conference, including descriptions of the content, takeaways and lessons-learned that practitioners can apply to their work, and ideas for further research or investigation; input from conference participants could be used to provide content for the article).

Prospective authors are encouraged to contact Mark Poteet at mlpoteet@verizon.net with ideas for potential articles they would like to write or with ideas about topics they would like to see addressed.

Format of Practice Forum Articles

The Practice Forum will also consider publishing articles in a variety of formats. These formats may include:

A traditional written article, following guidelines set forth in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th edition. Written article submissions should not exceed 15 double-spaced pages, not including references, figures, and/or tables.

A shorter written article accompanied by video content to be hosted on the Cambridge University Press website that can supplement the written content or serve as the main content of a submission. Written article submissions should not exceed 15 double-spaced pages, not including references, figures, and/or tables.

A detailed PowerPoint deck/presentation that serves as a standalone contribution. Submissions using this format should not exceed a total of 20 presentation slides.

Prospective authors are encouraged to contact Mark Poteet at mlpoteet@verizon.net to discuss these or ideas for alternative presentation methods.

Submission Guidelines

All author correspondence, ideas for a submission, and questions should be directed to Mark Poteet at mlpoteet@verizon.net

Submissions should be made in the form of a Word or Powerpoint document (as appropriate) via https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/iopsych

At least one author on a submission must be a SIOP member (e.g., i.e., Associate Member, International Affiliate, Member, Fellow).

Submissions must meet the page limit requirements noted in the above section.

Written articles should be written according to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th edition.

Submissions must meet issue deadlines in order to be considered for publication in the relevant issue. However, the forum editor reserves the right to determine the appropriate issue to publish an accepted submission. All items published in the IOP will be copyrighted by SIOP.

Submissions should be written in a manner that is consistent in all ways with SIOP’s Statement and Guidelines on Professional Behavior (http://www.siop.org/professional_behavior.aspx).

Submission of any original and editorial work to IOP comes with the implied confirmation that all listed authors have approved the manuscript (at all stages of review and revision).

Included with the submission should be a statement that the material has not been published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.

It will be assumed that the listed authors have approved the manuscript.

Review Guidelines

Each submission will be reviewed and evaluated by a minimum of two reviewers, and if it is deemed the submission is within the scope of the Practice Forum and makes a significant contribution, revisions may be requested.

If required, reviewers may review revised submissions, after which a decision to publish or not will be made by the section editor. The IOP editor may also be requested to review and/or discuss submissions as needed.

Reviews and publication decisions will be made based on the clarity and quality of the article, contribution to the advancement of I-O practice, relevancy and appropriateness for the forum, originality/creativity of the submission/practice intervention, and/or effective integration of science with practice.

Publication decisions will be solely that of the Editor and it will be at his/her discretion that all submissions will be considered for publication.