What is I-O?

We are writing to announce the further evolution of Personnel Psychology. Four years ago, Richard Campbell, Mike Campion, and Milt Hakel launched "Innovations in Research-Based Practice." Under Richard’s distinguished leadership, this section has presented brief reports, grounded in research, concerning the practice of applied psychology. The section has been successful in helping Personnel Psychology focus greater attention on issues that concern practitioners.

As Richard’s term as Editor was coming to its end, and well before his untimely death, Milt spoke with Richard and other friends and supporters of Personnel Psychology. Based on these conversations, Milt and Richard agreed that it is time to think about how this section should evolve to better address the concerns of practitioners who are confronted with day-to-day issues and decisions for which empirical research does not always provide direct answers. There was also a hope that this special section of the journal could help stimulate more empirical research in the main section of the journal on topics that have not been traditionally pursued by academically based programs of research.

Currently, practitioners appear to have two broad approaches to access and provide useful information. One approach is to read or submit to research journals such as Personnel Psychology, Journal of Applied Psychology, Academy of Management Journal, and many others. Unfortunately, these sources do not always address the concerns of practitioners and the implications for practice of apparently relevant research are not always straightforward. A second approach involves reading or submitting to practitioner-focused magazines. Unfortunately, the quality control in some of these sources is uneven at best, and authors are unlikely to get the type of critical, peer-review feedback that is often instrumental in sharpening and improving their ideas.

We believe Personnel Psychology is well positioned to address this gap between science and practice. Most of the practitioners we know see themselves as scientists-practitioners, and hence value critical analysis and peer review. They want to provide state-of-the-art solutions that solve problems and create competitive advantage for their organizations. We want this section of our journal to evolve to meet their concerns, while at the same time stimulating research ideas for the main section of the journal.

Beginning in our next issue, this section will be entitled the "Scientist-Practitioner Forum." This new title signals a new direction for the section. The ideas that we describe below were formed during conversations with a number of our colleagues. We hope that the "Scientist-Practitioner Forum" will sharpen our focus on practitioner concerns while broadening the range of topics and formats we present.

What Would a Submission to the "Scientist-Practitioner Forum" Look Like?

Articles can address virtually any topic that concerns practitioners. Although we do not want to prematurely constrain the possible topics or forms that submissions might take, a few examples may be helpful. A practitioner could submit a paper that:

The Process and Criteria for Reviewing Submissions

The criteria that will be considered when reviewing submissions for the "Scientist-Practitioner Forum" will depend on the nature of the submission (e.g., practitioner-oriented review, novel application, interview, point/coun-terpoint). Following are some criteria that are likely to be relevant:

• Addresses a current problem or dilemma facing practitioners.
• Presents situational context in which problem emerged and solution was developed.
• Describes the alternatives that practitioners may consider in response to such a problem or dilemma.
• Presents the rationale for the alternative selected and implemented.
• Assesses and describes the impact of the alternative that was implemented (e.g., via appropriate methods).
• Presents solutions, tools, insights, prescriptions, lessons learned, or methods that address practitioner concerns.
• Addresses content and process issues (obtaining "buy-in" implementation issues, communicating results, effect on organizational culture).
• Appropriately linked to or draws on conceptual/research literature.
• Leading-edge or innovative approaches and solutions.
• Practice is relevant in multiple contexts (i.e., generalizability).
• Clarity in writing.
• Appropriate qualitative or quantitative data analysis, while limiting lengthy or arcane statistical results/tables.
• Avoids any appearance of selling or promoting a particular consulting firm’s product or service (i.e., focuses on issues, not specific products).

How Can We Help?

To help cultivate appropriate submissions, we welcome calls from potential authors to discuss their ideas. Next, we will ask potential authors to submit an outline of the proposed article. We (e.g., the editorial board) will review the outline and provide feedback. This approach will help practitioners know whether it is worth investing the time to further develop their ideas into a formal submission. In sum, although we will employ a rigorous peer review and revision process, we will strive to create a climate where the development and refinement of ideas is more collaborative. Our hope is that this collaborative approach would inspire contributions from practitioners who might otherwise be reluctant to share their ideas and knowledge in a journal.