【管理学】SCI期刊专刊截稿信息6条

全文截稿: 2017-09-30

影响因子: 2.609

期刊难度: ★★★

CCF分类: 无

网址: www.journals.elsevier.com/transportation-research-part-a-policy-and-practice

Over half of the world´s population lives in urban areas and, in the future, this amount will increase. Urban transportation is therefore becoming increasingly important and solutions are urgent. This is particularly the case of large cities of developing countries.

The negative impacts of transportation—such as congestion, local and global emissions, increased fuel consumption, high transportation costs and increased accident rates, among others—are increasingly contributing to the deterioration of the life quality and loss of competitiveness of cities.

In order to contribute to solve the difficult urban transportation problems, it is very important to exchange experiences where innovative techniques are used.

This special issue seeks articles that describe innovative research with significant potential to increase sustainability of transportation systems. The special issue will consider submissions with focus on all transportation modes, and all aspects of transportation systems from operations to infrastructure planning and management.

Articles that bridge the theory-practice gap, o present real case studies that provide significant research insight, are particularly welcome. Also, articles that study transportation problems in developing cities are invited.

The subjects for this special issue include, but are not limited to:

- Transport infrastructure impacts.

- Sustainable transport policies.

- Traffic analysis.

- Sustainable public transport.

- Logistics and freight transportation.

- Transport economy and planning.

- Transport network modelling.

- Transport supply-demand equilibrium.

- Intelligent Transport Systems.

- Relationships between transport and land-use.

全文截稿: 2017-11-30

影响因子: 2.454

期刊难度: ★★★

CCF分类: 无

网址: www.journals.elsevier.com/organizational-behavior-and-human-decision-processes

Appropriate papers should address an important research question in the domain of mindfulness at work. We particularly seek manuscripts that shed light on important ongoing debates, link mindfulness to other constructs and theories in the areas of organizational behavior and decision making, or open up promising directions for future research. We accept both quantitative and qualitative studies and inductive and deductive approaches. While we anticipate most published papers to make empirical contributions, we will also consider theory papers that address important research questions and make significant theoretical contributions.

An illustrative, but not exhaustive list of topics that fall within the scope of this special issue is provided below:

1. Most research on mindfulness has been conducted on clinical samples and in clinical settings. What important differences and implications, if any, are there when studying mindfulness in a workplace context? How can studying mindfulness at work enhance both organizational and mindfulness scholarship?

2. Most research on mindfulness at work has examined mindfulness as an independent variable. What new insights can be gained by construing mindfulness as a mediator or as a moderator? Relatedly, what are the affective (e.g., emotion regulation) and cognitive mechanisms through which mindfulness affects individual and collective outcomes?

3. Existing research has focused on intra-unit relations of mindfulness with other variables. What are the inter-unit relations of mindfulness? For example, how does one employee’s mindfulness influence his or her co-workers (e.g., mindful contagion)? How might an organization’s mindful organizing influence other organizations? Could worker mindfulness influence family member outcomes?

4. Organizational research on mindfulness has broadly followed two paradigms: an individual-level approach drawing on seminal work of Jon Kabat-Zinn and others on Mindfulness-based Stress Reduction (MBSR) coming from a Buddhist tradition; and an organizational-level approach extending seminal work of Ellen Langer to organizational contexts. Can empirical work bridge or even integrate these perspectives? For example, do higher levels of individual mindfulness aggregate to collective mindfulness or do they work to enable the social processes of mindful organizing described in the work of Karl Weick and colleagues?

5. There is ongoing debate about the measurement of mindfulness. What can organizational scholars contribute to this debate by examining, for example, measurement of mindfulness at work, other-ratings of mindfulness or other issues related to the measurement of mindfulness?

6. Collective mindfulness has most frequently been studied in high-reliability organizations (e.g., nuclear power control rooms) or reliability-seeking organizations (e.g., intensive care units) prioritizing safety, does it influence a wider array of outcomes (e.g., productivity) and do so in more prosaic contexts (e.g., routine service work)? Do similar practices and processes elicit collective mindfulness in these contexts?

7. Mindfulness is central to Eastern contemplative traditions, yet interestingly, most of the academic research on mindfulness has been conducted in Western settings. What cultural factors, if any, are relevant in considering the practice and outcomes of mindfulness at the workplace?

8. Mindfulness is often used interchangeably with meditation in clinical research. In work contexts, are there factors other than meditation that are associated with higher mindfulness (e.g., work design)? And if mindfulness indeed has beneficial outcomes at the workplace, what can organizations do to facilitate mindfulness at the individual, team, and organizational level? What can we learn by studying mindfulness as a dependent variable?

9. Going beyond establishing the benefits of mindfulness at the generic levels, what insights can be gain on best practices for mindfulness training approaches in organizations (including delivery mechanisms, dosage, etc)?

10. Last, but by no means least: Mindfulness research often seems to have a decidedly positivist and practical approach focusing on whether mindfulness training programs “work” for the average participant. We seek research that helps us understand for whom workplace mindfulness training “works” and for whom it doesn’t, for what outcomes it “works” and for what outcomes it doesn’t, who is attracted to such training programs, and who isn’t, etc.

全文截稿: 2017-11-30

影响因子: 3.769

期刊难度: ★★★★★

CCF分类: 无

网址: www.journals.elsevier.com/transportation-research-part-b-methodological

Creating realistic detailed models and control strategies for large-scale transportation systems remains a big challenge, due to the high unpredictability and heterogeneity of traveler decisions (in terms of route, time and mode of travel), the uncertainty in their reactions to control and the spatiotemporal propagation of congestion, and the lack of coordinated actions coupled with the limited infrastructure available.

Instead of a detailed microscopic approach of traffic congestion, the macroscopic or network fundamental diagram (MFD or NFD) aims to simplify the complex task of the urban network modeling and consider the collective traffic flow dynamics of sub-networks to describe traffic operations at a network-wide level. Original work in large-scale modeling and traffic management of urban networks is encouraged to be submitted to address both theoretical and empirical aspects. Emphasis of papers on real data analysis will be well received. Investigation on current limitations of existing work is also welcome. The scope of the call includes, but not limited to:

- Properties and field of use of MFD models, particularly for congested large-scale networks

- Estimation of network wide variables with multi-sensor data

- Traffic instabilities in networks

- Advanced large-scale demand and traffic control strategies (coordinated traffic signal control, congestion pricing, incentive strategies, parking etc.)

- Large-scale modeling for multimodal systems

- Scalability of traffic dynamics

- Connection with other network traffic research

全文截稿: 2017-12-31

影响因子: 2.454

期刊难度: ★★★

CCF分类: 无

网址: www.journals.elsevier.com/organizational-behavior-and-human-decision-processes

Burgeoning research on authenticity documents multiple benefits of authenticity for individual well-being such as self-esteem, positive affect, life satisfaction, and meaning of life. At work, being authentic has been suggested to increase work engagement and job satisfaction and reduce stress. Research on related constructs such as authentic leadership similarly documents positive consequences of leaders being authentic – for the leaders themselves, their followers, and, ultimately, for organizations. At the same time, some scholars have recently voiced concerns for the term authenticity being used too positively and perhaps too broadly. They argue that at work, and especially for those in leadership positions, being always authentic can be counterproductive. Furthermore, authenticity may have different meanings and take different shapes. Popular press has recently engaged in a similar debate on positive and negative effects of authenticity, attributing, for instance, political successes and failures in part to leaders’ (in) authenticity.

This special issue aims at publishing ground breaking empirical research that would help better understand the dynamics and role of authenticity in the organizational context and advance the theory of authenticity at work.

Papers submitted to this issue should address important research questions in the domain of authenticity at work and make significant theoretical, empirical, and practical contributions. We particularly seek manuscripts that shed light on ongoing debates, link authenticity to other constructs and theories in the areas of organizational behavior and decision making, or open up promising directions for future research. We encourage critical perspectives and look for papers that bring empirical evidence to the debate of critical issues related to authenticity. While we anticipate most, if not all, published papers to make empirical contributions, we may also consider theory papers that address important research questions and make significant theoretical contributions.

An illustrative, but not exhaustive list of topics that fall within the scope of this special issue is provided below:

- Antecedents of authenticity at work. What factors contribute to individuals feeling they can stay true to self at work? When? Why? Among such factors, both individual differences and organizational characteristics and policies can be considered. For instance, how does gender or age impact the extent to which one is authentic at work? What organizational contexts, practices, routines, and work designs are most conducive to individuals being (in) authentic at work?

- Consequences of authenticity at work. Consequences for individuals, for teams, for organizations. Does being authentic at work help individuals progress in their careers? Does encouraging authenticity at work improve team dynamics? Does it increase team productivity? How does authenticity at work affect decision making in the organizational context?

- Boundary conditions and mechanisms. We seek research that helps us understand when authenticity at work is an asset and when it might be a liability. When does authenticity at work help? When is it counterproductive? Why? What are the mechanisms through which authenticity affects individual and collective outcomes?

- Authenticity as a moderator. Could authenticity moderate some important processes in organizations? For instance, could it be that to realize maximum potential of diverse groups, group members should feel they express their authentic self at work?

- Authenticity as a mediator. Could authenticity mediate some important processes in organizations? For example, could it be that certain organizational policies and procedures or leadership styles make employees feel more – or less – authentic, which in turn affects their motivation and productivity?

- Meaning and measures of authenticity at work. While several general measures of authenticity include multiple components, how should authenticity at work be measured? Does it have to include a moral component? Does it have to be defined from an individualist perspective, e.g., being true to self, resisting external influence? Can one be authentic and at the same time take into account external, e.g., organizational, influences and circumstances as well as interests of others?

- Perceptions of authenticity. What determines whether others perceive an individual as authentic at work? Does it matter whether one is perceived as authentic at work – both for individual, team, and organizational outcomes?

- Contagious (in) authenticity. Could (in) authenticity be contagious? For example, how does an individual’s authenticity at work influence the extent to which his or her co-workers are authentic at work? How does leader authenticity affect subordinates’ authenticity?

- Authenticity vs. conformity. From organizational and team perspective, what is the “right mix” of authenticity and conformity? How can this mix be achieved? And if authenticity has beneficial outcomes at the workplace under certain circumstances, what can organizations do to ensure individuals can be authentic at work?

- Cultural differences and authenticity. What cultural factors, if any, are relevant for the construal of authenticity, desirability of authenticity at work, its antecedents and consequences?

- Review Process Papers submitted to the special issue will follow the standard review procedure for OBHDP.

全文截稿: 2018-03-01

影响因子: 2.454

期刊难度: ★★★

CCF分类: 无

网址: www.journals.elsevier.com/organizational-behavior-and-human-decision-processes

In our increasingly complex, global and fast-paced world, competing demands on individuals and teams continually surface in the context of organizational life.Individualsface challenges between work and family, learning and performing, collaborating and competing.Teamsgrapple with tensions between individual and collective accomplishments, specializing and coordination, and meeting creativity and efficiency goals.Leadersneed to maintain both distance and closeness, treat subordinates uniformly while allowing individualism, and ensure decision control while allowing autonomy. Moreover, in an increasingly global environment, individuals and leaders must increasingly act globally, while dealing with local demands or nuances. Perhaps as an even greater challenge, they may value nationalistic concerns, while simultaneously embracing multiculturalism and a global mindset.

The rapidly expanding field of organizational paradox and dialectics offers insights into the nature and management of these tensions (see Putnam, Fairhurst, & Banghart, 2016; Schad, Lewis, Raisch, & Smith, 2016). These varying literatures all share a common focus on multiple demands that are bothcontradictory, as well asinterdependent. Rather than depict competing demands as problems that require immediate solutions, these literatures describe tensions that are embedded and persistent over time. Scholars have adopted a paradox lens to understand tensions across levels and across phenomena including tensions in human resource management (Aust, Brandl, & Keegan, 2015), leadership (Owens, Wallace, & Waldman, 2015;Zhang, Waldman, Han, & Li, 2015), identity (Elsbach & Bhattacharya, 2001;Kreiner, Hollensbe, Sheep, Smith, & Kataria, 2015), creativity (Miron-Spektor, Erez, & Naveh, 2011), goal setting (Miron-Spektor & Beenen, 2015), teams (Ashforth & Reingen, 2014;Murnighan & Conlon, 1991), social responsibility and sustainability (Hahn, Preuss, Pinkse, & Figge, 2014), hybrid organizing (Jay, 2013), innovation (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009;Smith, 2014), academic entrepreneurship (Link, Siegel, & Wright, 2015), gender and diversity (Ashcraft, 2013;Gill, 2012;van den Brink & Stobbe, 2009), among others. As this growing body of research suggests, a paradox lens truly offers a new way of viewing organizational phenomena, as well as solutions and ways of responding to ongoing problems that managers and organizations face.

However, as scholars increasingly adopt a paradox approach, key questions prevail that present opportunities to expand the value of this lens. First, accumulated research has predominantly examinedorganizational-level approaches to leveraging these tensions. But as our world becomes more complex, paradoxical tensions critically emerge at theindividual andteamlevels of analyses. Newly developed theories and instruments may enable more micro-level research of paradoxes. Second, theorizing on paradox, dualities and dialectics has predominantly stressed perspectives centered in Western thinking. Yet Eastern philosophical traditions offer additional, expansive, or even contradictory perspectives about the nature and implications of paradox (e.g., seeLi, 2014;Nisbett, 2010;Peng & Nisbett, 1999). Researchers then can benefit from addressing cultural differences and similarities to expand insight into the way individuals and teams in different cultures, as well as in multicultural settings, cope with tensions. Finally, while scholars who use a paradox lens depict competing demands as residing in dynamic, persistent tensions, most management studies treat paradoxical phenomena as static and fixed (Schad et al., 2016). Researchers who embrace a dialectical lens emphasize processual approaches to studying contradictions and paradoxes (Farjoun, in press;Langley & Sloan, 2011;Putnam et al., 2016). An expansion of our understanding of paradoxes through a process lens will require more longitudinal approaches that explore dynamics over time (Langley, 1999).

This special issue ofOBHDPwill generate new insights in decision making, management, and organizational theory by applying a paradox lens across a broad range of phenomena and existing theories. Specifically, it will further theory development in two explicit ways. First, the special issue will enrich our understanding of paradox theory by calling for micro-level studies that draw on a variety of cultural histories, and explore not only static, but also dynamic conceptualizations of management. Second, we encourage discipline-based studies that use a paradox lens as a meta-perspective to provide insights into a range of management or organizational phenomena. Accordingly, this special issue seeks to advance not only paradox theory, but also more discipline- or topically-based theoretical areas. Thus, we expect and encourage papers from multiple levels of analysis, across a number of topical areas, using a variety of methodologies, including surveys, qualitative case studies, experiments, and neuroscience-based methods. In addition, authors may submit theory development papers. Examples of research questions that might be addressed include:

- How do tensions and contradictions interface at individual, team and organizational levels in ways that create opportunities and challenges in responding to them?

- How do ways of recognizing, responding to, and managing paradoxes exemplify and embrace Eastern as well as Western philosophies that underlie contradictions?

- What explains our ability to recognize and effectively cope with paradoxical tensions?

- Can neuroscience concepts and methods offer insights into paradoxical mindsets or cognition?

- What insights do we gain from process studies of dialectics and paradoxes that focus on particular organizational phenomena, such as leadership, negotiation, conflict management, and ethical issues, and so forth?

- How do we engage both individual contributions and collective teamwork to enable increased performance and success?

- How can teams simultaneously capitalize on diversity, while maintaining homogeneity?

- Is it possible for managers and organizations to best maintain control by letting go of it, and if so, how?

- With regard to work design, how can organizations best achieve control and flexibility simultaneously?

- In a global environment, how can individuals and organizations deal with the tensions between local and global thinking, or nationalism and multiculturalism?

- What are the managerial implications of adopting a paradox lens for various performance outcomes, and in different cultures?

- How can university faculty maintain their identities as academic scientists, while simultaneously engaging in commercialization of their intellectual property and entrepreneurship?

全文截稿: 2018-03-31

影响因子: 2.454

期刊难度: ★★★

CCF分类: 无

网址: www.journals.elsevier.com/organizational-behavior-and-human-decision-processes

The editors are primarily interested in empirical studies of individual behavior in organizations and other natural environments. The unit of analysis will typically be the individual, although more aggregate levels that can be linked to individual behavior are welcomed. The primary study will use data that are behavioral, not self-reported. The behavior will typically be “natural”—normal tasks that are not stylized experimental designs.

Although we welcome any paper using behavioral field evidence, we are particularly interested in the following classes of papers:

- Natural field experiments: Randomized field experiments that examine common daily tasks (Greenberg 1990; Nagin et al. 2002; Jin and Kato 2006; Shu et al. 2012; Azar et al. 2013; Balafoutas et al. 2013).

- Audit or other observational studies: Data collection and analysis of misconduct and potential predictors and correlates (Prukner and Sausgruber 2013).

- Archival analysis: Regression and other quantitative methods of analyzing pre-existing data (Edelman and Larkin 2014; Aven 2015; Palmer and Yenkey 2015; Pierce et al. 2015; Yenkey 2017).


The following criteria will be used to evaluate the quality of the papers. We note that papers need not meet all or even most of these criteria, but authors should explicitly address them in explaining the paper’s contribution.

- Importance of problem and setting: Authors should emphasize why the question they examine is of key importance to either organizations or society.

- Uniqueness of contribution: How much does the paper expand our knowledge about a phenomenon, theory, or methodology? We note that the unique contribution can be purely empirical, replicating (or not replicating) an observed effect from laboratory or survey research in a natural field setting.

- Causal identification: How well does the paper establish that the independent variable causes the dependent variable?

- Identification of mechanisms: How well does the paper convince the reader of the economic, psychological, or social mechanisms that drive the behavior of interest?

下载Call4Papers App，获取更多详细内容！