---
name: jom-topic-selection
description: Use when shaping or screening a research question for the Journal of Operations Management (JOM) — testing whether operations is genuinely at the heart of the question, whether the work can be empirical, and which of JOM's 12 Departments should route it (vs. analytical OM venues like M&SOM / Management Science / Operations Research).
---

# Topic Selection & JOM Fit (jom-topic-selection)

## When to trigger

- You have an OM or supply-chain idea but are unsure it fits JOM rather than an analytical OM journal
- Operations appears only as the *setting* of the study, not the phenomenon under investigation
- You cannot yet name an empirical observation that would anchor the study
- You do not know which JOM Department your paper belongs to

## The JOM fit test

JOM publishes **original, empirical operations management research with academic and practical relevance**, where **operations are at the heart of the research question, not just in the context**. Apply four screens before investing:

1. **Operations-as-heart.** The dependent or focal phenomenon must be an operations or supply-chain phenomenon — production, service delivery, inventory, quality, projects, sourcing, logistics, sustainability/social operations, healthcare delivery. If you could swap operations for any other setting and the question survives, it is context, not heart — fix this first.
2. **Empirical mandate.** JOM does **not** publish purely analytical models or optimization techniques ("these belong in operations research, industrial engineering, or analytical OM journals"). "It is the observation that renders the research empirical." Your design must rest on observed data — survey, archival/secondary, field, case, experiment, or intervention.
3. **Theory contribution.** Empirical strength alone is not enough; the study must engage and advance OM-relevant theory (operational, behavioral, organizational, economic).
4. **Practical relevance.** ASCM is a practitioner body; the question should matter to managers of for-profit or nonprofit operations.

## Department routing (choose early)

JOM routes every submission to one of **12 Departments**, each with its own mission and Department Editors: Healthcare Operations; Innovation and Project Management; Inter-organizational Operations; Intervention Based Research; Operational Systems; Operations Interfaces; Public Policy and Industry Studies; Social Impact; Strategy and Organization; Sustainable Operations; Technology Management; and Empirical Research Methods. Decide early — at submission you must name **two Departments, one preferred** — because the Department frames who evaluates the contribution and which conversation you must join.

## Anti-patterns

- An optimization or pure simulation model with no observation (wrong journal — analytical OM).
- Operations as mere backdrop for a generic management or marketing question.
- A phenomenon-only paper with no theory engagement.
- Choosing a Department after the fact instead of letting it sharpen the question.

## The four-screen fit gate

Run every candidate question through all four screens before investing. The gate below operationalizes JOM's stated scope; confirm Department fit against the current mission statements.

| Screen | Passes | Fails — and where it belongs instead |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
| Operations-as-heart | Focal phenomenon is operations/supply-chain and the claim depends on it | Operations is backdrop → generic management/marketing outlet |
| Empirical mandate | Design observes data (survey/archival/field/case/experiment/IBR) | Pure model/optimization → operations research or analytical OM |
| Theory contribution | Engages and advances OM-relevant theory | Phenomenon-only description → needs a theory hook before submission |
| Practical relevance | Matters to managers of for-profit or nonprofit operations | No practitioner stake → reframe toward an operational decision |

## Desk-reject triggers this stage prevents

- An optimization or pure simulation model with no observation — redirected to analytical OM venues.
- Operations used as mere setting for a question that survives in any industry.
- A phenomenon paper with no engagement of OM theory.
- A Department chosen after the fact rather than used to sharpen the question.

## Worked vignette: screening a sustainability-operations idea

A researcher wonders whether supplier sustainability audits reduce downstream disruptions (illustrative). Screen 1: the focal phenomenon is supply-chain disruption and the lever is an operational practice (audits) — operations is the heart, not context. Screen 2: it is observable via an archival panel of audit records and disruption events, so the empirical mandate is met. Screen 3: it can advance theory by testing whether audits work through capability-building or through deterrence — a mechanism contribution, not just an effect. Screen 4: managers decide audit frequency, so practical relevance is direct. Department routing: Sustainable Operations preferred, Inter-organizational Operations alternate. The idea clears all four screens, so it is JOM-fit; an optimization model of audit scheduling would not be.

## Referee and editor scope signals

- *"Operations is only the setting"* — re-center the question on an operational phenomenon the claim depends on.
- *"This is analytical, not empirical"* — either add observed data or redirect to an analytical OM journal.

## Output format

```
【Operations-as-heart?】yes/no — focal OM phenomenon is ...
【Empirical?】design will observe ... (survey/archival/field/case/experiment/IBR)
【Theory hook】advances ...
【Practical relevance】matters because ...
【Department routing】preferred: ...; alternate: ...
【Verdict】JOM-fit / redirect to analytical OM venue / reframe
【Next step】jom-theory-development
```