Editorial

In this special issue we celebrate the 25th anniversary of IJOPM by featuring six articles, chosen by the editors and the Editorial Advisory Board for their significance and influence on the field. Even with citation analysis and peer review, the selection process was difficult and underlined how many worthy articles have been published over the 25‐year period. Regrettably we could only publish six. The authors were also asked to reflect on their original articles and to comment on how relevant their findings remain for the Operations Management community today. We are grateful to these authors, who, without exception, have provided additional insights into unresolved issues and pointed to future research directions. Their legacy has extended beyond this special issue, having provided significant foundations for much noteworthy research since.

It is also fitting that each of the past editors, Christopher New, Keith Howard and Bob Hollier (on behalf of his editorial team), has written a short contemplation of their editorial experiences. While the very first volume comprised four issues, we are now producing twelve issues per volume with five articles in each issue. In this regard it is our privilege to thank all of the past editors for their respective contributions; it is they who have built the journal's reputation and heritage and established it at the forefront of the discipline.

The founding philosophy and values of IJOPM have remained constant over these 25 years and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The journal is focused primarily on empirical research that addresses contemporary Operations Management issues. Authors who seek to publish in IJOPM need to engage with the world of Operations Management practice in order to understand practitioners' concerns and problems and to test and develop new ideas. IJOPM is catholic in its acceptance of a broad range of research methods, provided they are appropriate and rigorous in their execution.

In twenty‐five years we have seen many developments that have changed OM practices. We have witnessed the radical changes brought about by computer controlled machine tools and CAD systems, enterprise‐wide information systems and the Internet. We can be fairly certain that the current research “hot topics” will follow the same path as earlier stalwarts. Therefore it behoves us all to try to anticipate where our field is going, by building upon a stronger theoretical base. Thus there will always be a place for theoretical articles that extend our understanding, challenge conventional wisdom and point to new avenues of investigation. However, these articles appear to be especially difficult to write and are not for the inexperienced. All too often we, as researchers, ride the waves of new practices, rather than truly influencing the field through ground breaking and innovative theory‐driven investigation.

The last quarter‐century has also seen many developments that have changed the practice of research. It is sobering to remember that the personal computer and word processing only became commonplace in the 1980s, making the process of writing and revising a manuscript much less burdensome. Taken together with the widespread availability of PC‐based statistical packages, the advent of web‐based data collection, and a much more rigorous treatment of qualitative research methods to name but a few, it is not surprising that standards for publication have risen. Yet we have a residual concern that the overall quality of papers has not increased commensurate with these, and other, improvements in methods, techniques and tools. Good research requires more than mere competence in these latter dimensions. Good researchers need dedication, patience, vision, persistence and tenacity. They must spend time regularly in the world of Operations Management practice and never allow themselves to be so beguiled by sophisticated statistical analysis that technique overshadows purpose.

So while the journal will continue with unchanged values, developments in Operations Management research and practice demand that much else must change and evolve. As incumbent editors we wrestle constantly with the tension between continuity and change. We have moved to an all electronic review process, designed to shorten the cycle time. We have instigated specific performance targets for all stages in the review process. While we must acknowledge that these have not yet always been met, things are still improving significantly. The scope of topics also inevitably needed updating, as has the Editorial Advisory Board which has been expanded. It has been heartening to discover the esteem that IJOPM receives within the global Operations Management research community. We seek to recognise this by making the journal even more internationally inclusive.

Our links with the European Operations Management Association (EurOMA) are strong, and we value the advice and support of the EurOMA Board. For several years we have sponsored the Chris Voss Best Paper Award at the annual EurOMA conference. Beyond Europe we have forged stronger links with the OM division of the Academy of Management, where we are delighted to sponsor the Distinguished Scholar Awards, presented each year at the annual conference.

We have also developed a database of reviewers with details of their current specialisms. We rely heavily on the thoroughness and timeliness of reviewers who give of their time and experience so freely. The vast majority of our reviewers provide excellent and constructive evaluations of submitted papers. It is fitting to convey our thanks for their part in the first 25 years of IJOPM, notwithstanding the increasing demands on their time which is symptomatic of academic life today and the growth in the number of cognate journals. We need the continued commitment of our reviewers in order to maintain and improve the quality and standing of the journal.

Acceptance for publication is becoming a tougher goal. Out of the 350‐400 papers we receive each year we only publish about 60. In many ways the principles of writing a high quality article have not changed, and are relatively simple, yet it is a constant source of surprise that articles are submitted without adherence to these principles. Clear and realistic research objectives should emanate from a thorough and insightful evaluation of the relevant Operations Management literature. Choices of research methods should be justified, and appropriate to the objectives of the paper, as should the collection, analysis and interpretation of data. Too many authors still feel it is necessary to develop new measures of constructs, rather than refine and build upon existing measures. Too few authors understand the difference between a case study written for teaching purposes and a research‐based case that makes an original and novel contribution. More surprising still is the number of submitted articles where the authors have clearly not read the journal's guidelines on matters of scope, presentation, referencing, and so on.

As editors we strive to be fair; to see the potential in every paper, especially when reviewers disagree in their evaluations, as sometimes happens. We also endeavour to be encouraging and developmental; to bring on new reviewers and support younger authors, ever conscious that, one day, we too must pass the baton to a new editorial team. When we took over editorial responsibility we could not have predicted what lay ahead. It has been demanding yet rewarding; sometimes frustrating yet always stimulating. We sense the responsibility placed upon us by the global Operations Management community. IJOPM belongs to all of us. The task is simple – to ensure that the journal goes from strength to strength, and that in another 25 years' time, the editors of the 50th anniversary issue can be even more proud of what has been achieved.

Special thanks to Dr Alan Pilkington, Royal Holloway, University of London, for his helpful citations analysis advice.