Human Resource Management Review 26 (2016) 87–89

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Human Resource Management Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/humres

Editorial

Continuing the call to conceptualize

I am honored and humbled to be the next Editor-in-Chief for Human Resource Management Review (HRMR). I accepted this role be-
cause of the strong current position of the journal and my belief in its potential. HRMR was first published in 1991 and co-edited by Jeffrey
S. Kane and H. John Bernardin. When the journal was first announced, I wrote to Professor Kane and offered my services as an ad hoc
reviewer. In that letter, I stated: “I think that there is a real need for a journal like the Review.” At every stage since, when agreeing to
take on additional responsibility for the journal – as a Review Board member, Associate Editor, and now as Editor – I did so because
the journal has a very important role in advancing the scholarship of Human Resources Management.

The vision and value of HRMR

HRMR fills an important and unique niche because it is a conceptual journal with a specific disciplinary focus — Human
Resource Management, defined broadly as discussed further below. In addition, unlike other conceptual journals that require
papers to provide clear theoretical advancement, HRMR welcomes manuscripts that facilitate the development of such advance-
ments. That is, HRMR welcomes conceptual theorizing (Weick, 1995) as well as full-blown theories. Models, typologies, frame-
works, critical syntheses, etc., are not themselves theories, but are welcome at HRMR if they provide unique insights and help
advance theory development.
At the time the journal was founded, the field of Human Resources (HR) was frequently criticized for its absence of theory. HRMR
was launched with an “invitation to conceptualize” and in response to the view that more thought was needed in conceptualizing the
constructs in the field and developing better explanations of the studied phenomena (Kane & Bernardin, 1991). HRMR was created to
encourage the conceptual syntheses of the empirical evidence that was being accumulated and to stimulate new theorizing and the
development of new frameworks and concepts to advance the field. Consistent with those goals, numerous impactful articles have
been published in HRMR over the subsequent 25 years. At the same time, the nature of work, organizations, and the employment
relationship are changing at ever increasing rates. As such, the need to continue to conceptualize is as great as ever. Our models, the-
ories, and frameworks have to advance to add value to the study and practice of HR management. The invitation to conceptualize thus
remains open.
I would like to see HRMR viewed as the primary source for HR scholars looking to gain or provide conceptual academic
thought leadership and research ideas. If you have, or are looking for, new theories, models, frameworks, insights, and a
future research agenda for HR related topics, think of HRMR as the outlet for your work, or the place to start your search.
Given the current success of the journal, most things are staying the same. HRMR will continue to be a quarterly academic
journal devoted to the publication of scholarly conceptual/theoretical articles pertaining to human resource management.
HRMR has always defined HR broadly, but I want that scope to be as broad as possible without loosing focus. As such, I want
to be explicit in stating that any topic relating to HR, from any perspective, any level(s) of analyses, and any disciplinary
lens are welcome. The journal will also continue to publish special issues and you are welcome to contact me with ideas
for a special issue.
The current structure of Associate Editors assigning reviewers and the current review process and criteria will also remain
largely unchanged. HRMR strives to provide a timely and constructive review process. Even if your manuscript is not accepted,
I want you to feel that the process was fair and the effort worthwhile. There are, of course, some things that will change. The
Review Board will be refreshed and, in doing so, its global representation increased to better reflect the readership and authors
submitting to the journal. Based on my personal experience, I welcome volunteers to serve as ad hoc reviewers and those who
excel will be invited to serve on the Editorial Board. Another change is that a select number of invited reviews will be solicited
each year, and a more concerted effort will be developed to promote the excellent papers appearing in HRMR and the impor-
tant niche the journal fills for the field. If you have other recommendations for or reactions to the journal, I welcome your
feedback.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.02.001
1053-4822/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Inc.
88 Editorial

Journal scope

The scope of the journal is not changing. I would, however, like to take this opportunity to provide additional clarity regarding
the types of articles sought by HRMR. In short, articles are sought with CACHET. That is, to be considered for publication, a man-
uscript submitted to HRMR should (a) be Conceptual, (b) be Academically focused, (c) Contribute to the literature, (d) address an
important HR topic, (e) Engage readers, and (f) facilitate future Theoretical development and empirical research.

Conceptual

HRMR publishes conceptual articles that provide new insights. Unless specifically requested as part of a special issue, HRMR
does not consider manuscripts that report empirical investigations that test hypotheses or use data to inductively examine ideas.

Academic

Manuscripts submitted to HRMR should have implications for practice, but should not be directed to a practitioner audience.
HRMR is a scholarly journal and its target audience is academics.

Contribution

Like any top journal, HRMR seeks manuscripts that will have an impact, particularly in terms of adding value and novel
insights to the literature with respect to implications for further theoretical development and future empirical research.

HR focus

HRMR welcomes manuscripts focusing on micro-, macro-, or multi-level phenomena relating to the function and processes of
human resource management, as well as topics in allied fields (e.g. industrial/organizational psychology, human capital, labor re-
lations, organizational behavior) that influence or are influenced by HR management activities. Subject areas appropriate for
HRMR include (but are not limited to) strategic HR management, international HR management, the nature and role of the HR
function in organizations, any specific HR function or activity (e.g., Job Analysis, Job Design, Workforce Planning, Recruitment, Se-
lection and Placement, Performance and Talent Management, Reward Systems, Training, Development, Careers, Safety and Health,
Social Issues, Fairness, Employment Law, Employee Relations, Labor Relations, Workforce Metrics, HR Analytics, HRM and Technol-
ogy, Social issues and HRM, Separation and Retention), and HR research methods. Examples of relevant topics in allied fields
include (but are not limited to) Climate, Culture, Change, Leadership and Power, Groups and Teams, Employee Attitudes and
Behavior, Individual, team, and/or Organizational Performance. Papers introducing or helping to advance our understanding of
emergent HR topics or issues are also strongly encouraged.

Engaging

Think about the assigned articles from your Ph.D. training that were your favorites. Chances are, the fact that you enjoyed and
remember those articles is as much about the writing as the content. Poor writing will obscure the brightest of ideas. For an
article to have impact (and get through the review process), it must be readable in terms of language and the writing. HRMR ar-
ticles should engage readers (and be assigned in Ph.D. seminars), which requires submitted manuscripts to be well written.

Theory building

HRMR seeks manuscripts that introduce new concepts or new conceptualizations of constructs and/or that provide new theo-
ries, models, and frameworks to help explain and understand HR-related phenomenon. Critical reviews or examinations of
existing ideas, including quantitative meta-analytical reviews, are also welcome if they provide a unique synthesis or other orig-
inal conceptual contributions. The take-away from an HRMR article should be new insights that stimulate future theoretical devel-
opment and empirical research. Please see the journal website (http://www.journals.elsevier.com/human-resource-management-
review) for additional information regarding the scope of the journal and submission instructions.

In gratitude

Any journal is only as good as the manuscripts it attracts and the use its readers make of its content. So my first note of thanks
is to the readers and potential authors of HRMR. I also want to thank Publisher Vicki Wetherell for giving me this opportunity and
the entire team at Elsevier, particularly Santhosh Rao, Jenny Ellis, Razina Miah, and Stacy King for all the help and support they
provide to the journal and to me. Another huge thank you goes to the amazing set of Associate Editors I have inherited, all of
which are continuing in their roles: David B. Balkin, Elizabeth C. Ravlin, Dianna L. Stone-Romero, and Rebecca A. Thacker. They
have done a wonderful job in this important role and I am pleased that there will be this high degree of continuity. An additional
Associate Editor will also be added.
 Editorial 89

The members of the HRMR Review Board and its ad hoc reviewers – past, present, and future – also have my sincere gratitude.
Reviewing is a largely thankless, but essential, service role. The peer review process would cease to function without the time and
effort of reviewers. I also want to thank the prior authors and editors who have helped build the reputation of HRMR to its current
state. Finally, I want to recognize and thank the outgoing editor, Rodger W. Griffeth. Amazingly, Rodger served as HRMR editor
from 1997 through 2015. Under his outstanding leadership, the journal has grown, thrived, and improved substantially on
every key dimension, including submissions, status in our field, and impact. I want to personally thank Rodger for all he has
done for the journal, by extension for the field of HR, and for the opportunities that he has given me. I will strive to serve the
journal as well as Rodger has.

References

Kane, J. S., & Bernardin, H. J. (1991). An invitation to conceptualize. Human Resource Management Review, 1.
Weick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 385–390.

Howard J. Klein
The Ohio State University, United States