As we begin a new chapter in the leadership of the Journal of Business Logistics (JBL), we have taken the time to listen and reflect. Thankfully, the previous editor teams, most recently Beth Davis-Sramek and Glenn Richey, are handing over the Journal in excellent shape. Submissions, acceptance rates, turnaround times, and impact factors all firmly place JBL among the small set of leading journals in the broader supply chain management space. We do not take this success for granted. In a world of AI, rising expectations for academic promotion and tenure, and dynamic global business challenges, emerging as a journal of choice is not an easy feat. To best serve our readers, authors, and engaged community members, JBL needs to continuously improve. To this end, we have spent considerable time reflecting on JBL's legacy and its role within the discipline. In addition, we sought the perspectives of a broad array of JBL stakeholders. This process has revealed both clarity and questions about who we are, what we value, and how to best lead JBL forward. In this editorial, we outline the principles, priorities, and expectations that will guide our editorship over the next 4 years. We particularly focus on three pillars: the Journal's identity, theoretical and methodological expectations, and guidelines to consider when authoring and reviewing research for JBL. While an exhaustive treatment of each issue is beyond the scope here, we think of this first editorial as a roadmap and conversation starter that will evolve as we continue to listen and engage with our community. JBL, as a premier supply chain journal, publishes high-quality empirical and conceptual research that shapes scholarly discourse, informs managerial practice, and in so doing engages a global audience. While some journals intentionally narrow their scope or privilege certain paradigms, JBL remains committed to a broad and inclusive view of global supply chain scholarship. We believe that strong research can come from any thought tradition, theoretical foundation, level of analysis, or method, as long as it advances the scholarly and practical understanding of how supply chains function and provide utility. We broadly view supply chain management as the intentional coordination of the tangible and intangible resources required to provide time, place, form, and possession utility to customers in efficient, effective, resilient, and sustainable ways. Accordingly, we publish work that advances our understanding of how organizations can source inputs, perform value-adding operational processes, and fulfill demand in a manner that enhances their performance, be it in operational, financial, environmental, or societal terms. The Journal's scope includes the full portfolio of supply chain activities that enable the provision of time, place, form, and possession utility to customers. Any submissions to the Journal should address specific activities, practices, or processes that facilitate the provision of one or more of these utilities in the context of physical goods or services. Regardless of discipline, a common goal of business research generally is to inform and understand performance improvements at the functional and organizational levels. In most cases, this involves investigating how changes in activities impact outcomes in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, resilience, and sustainability. What differentiates business scholarship across disciplines is what is being improved. In the case of supply chain management, the object of improvement is the provision of time, place, form, and possession utility. This is what anchors us and gives supply chain management a unique identity. Thus, we seek research that makes supply chains better by identifying ways and means to provide utility rather than research that focuses on performance improvement in any domain. To clarify, consider the following examples of performance-related research that are within scope and out of scope: These in-scope examples all share two key desirable features. First, their supply chain content is substantive, not incidental, and supports a 'supply chain-forward' positioning of the research. Second, their central constructs are clearly supply chain-related and linked to time, place, form, or possession utility. Most manuscripts that are suitable for JBL will make such contributions. Supply chain phenomena may be studied across multiple levels of analysis, from individuals and teams to organizations, networks, and ecosystems. JBL is open to all. We welcome research that explores decision-making by supply chain managers, coordination across functional units, relationships between firms, or performance across complex global systems. We also value the critical role consumers often play in shaping supply chain designs and operations. What matters is not the level of analysis; rather, it is the insight into providing utility. A study focused on individuals may be in scope if the focal constructs relate to topics like logistics decisions or sourcing practices. Similarly, network-level analyses are appropriate when they provide insight into coordination mechanisms, flow management, or structural trade-offs in supply chains. We recognize that some supply chain topics often intersect with potentially polarizing policy or societal debates. We welcome all supply chain research that is framed impartially, conducted transparently, and presented with scholarly integrity in an unbiased manner. Our goal is to foster respectful dialogue and evidence-based insights that can inform supply chain-related decisions. This is how JBL will continue to earn readers' and authors' trust across sectors, regions, and viewpoints. We believe that the most impactful research is that which both advances theory and informs management practice. JBL aims to be the preferred home for such high-quality work. In fact, JBL's differentiator and strength have been its dual mission of serving both scholarly inquiry and managerial decision making. The affiliation with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP) underlines and reinforces this ambidextrous purpose. It provides us with a clear identity and a robust network of academic and practitioner contributors who are committed to research that informs theory and improves practice. We will work toward further strengthening JBL's reputation by continually developing the Journal into a platform for amplifying the impact of keen supply chain management insights. As business school stakeholders demand clearer returns on research investment, JBL will lean even further into our goal of publishing work grounded in real problems, with real data, offering real implications. We encourage authors to engage with industry partners and to communicate findings that supply chain professionals can use. We want relevant ideas that resonate with managers and impact their decision-making. To facilitate this goal and to help authors extend the reach of their work, we will disseminate research insights through CSCMP's channels, practitioner-facing outlets, social media, and podcast infrastructure in collaboration with CSCMP and Agile Media. As part of our efforts to ensure that JBL research resonates with industry, we will require authors of accepted manuscripts to submit a short executive summary for practitioners. This summary will highlight the core issue, the context, and the actionable insight. It will not explain methods or theory. It will be used to promote accepted research and bring JBL's findings to a wider audience in ways that more readily address industry problems and can more quickly affect change in practice. Just as supply chains are global, connecting economies, bridging cultures, and enabling commerce, JBL is a global journal. We invite high-quality submissions from around the world. We respect and appreciate different research traditions and strive to recruit and deploy review team members whose expertise and skill sets reflect such diversity. We welcome work that makes substantive contributions to theory and practice by examining particular geographic, institutional, and cultural differences that shape causal relationships of interest. In so doing, JBL will continue to engage and cater to the needs of a global audience. As an editorial team, we are committed to further expanding the Journal's global reach and community. Besides interesting and impactful research questions that are firmly positioned within the broader supply chain management space, all research published in JBL must be executed and presented in ways that maintain the reputation and integrity of the Journal. This requires that published research make compelling use of extant theory to frame and develop its contributions. Moreover, the research must uphold and, in some cases, advance methodological standards. Considering our desire to shape and lead academic discourse in the discipline as well as the practical visibility and impact of the work published in JBL, rigorous execution is paramount. While we strive for brevity in this editorial, we do find it necessary to state a few important perspectives regarding theory and methods. JBL is welcoming to all approaches of contributing to supply chain knowledge and theory. Thus, be it research that builds new frameworks inductively, uses empirical data to test or extend existing models, or applies theory to new contexts to identify boundary conditions, JBL is accepting provided that the theoretical grounding is clearly articulated and appropriately developed. Ultimately, the objective must be to contribute to a better understanding of supply chain phenomena. We ask that authors articulate their contributions clearly and explain how their findings add to extant SCM knowledge. As a primarily empirical journal, JBL welcomes quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, and conceptual theory-building manuscripts. Likewise, we encourage methodological pluralism as a means of producing a richer and more nuanced understanding of supply chain phenomena. In all cases, key considerations are the alignment of the chosen method(s) with the research question, the theoretical framing, and the adherence to methodological standards and best practices. Such choices should be transparently explained and substantively justified. The primary question is whether the method—in conjunction with the theoretically grounded causal logic—serves to answer the research question in a meaningful and compelling manner. While methodological rigor and depth are important, methods are best thought of as the technical means that serve a conceptual end. Too often, we see manuscripts that use methodological complexity to mask a weak research question or insufficient insight. To put it lightly, this is akin to using "a methodological bazooka to kill a conceptual fly." Rigor is essential, and we would never argue otherwise, but at JBL strong methods must serve to help answer strong, relevant questions and ensure that a study's findings are valid and believable. Unless the methods are the key contribution, we prefer research where methodological tactics are viewed and presented as one component of a multi-faceted research effort to inform theory and management practice. The integrity, efficiency, and quality of the research and review processes are paramount to the Journal's continued success. To this end, we articulate our thoughts on selected issues and key priorities below. As artificial intelligence becomes more embedded in the research process, JBL will permit its responsible and transparent use. We view AI as a productivity tool, not a creative engine. It can help researchers improve the clarity, structure, formatting, or summation of their work, but it should not be used to generate core ideas, fabricate findings, or substitute for scholarly reasoning. We expect authors and reviewers to use AI judiciously, more like a spell-checker or outline assistant than a co-author or co-reviewer. Research should be driven by human curiosity, contextual understanding, and methodological rigor. While AI tools can enhance communication, they should never replace the foundational work of idea generation, data interpretation, or contribution framing. In this spirit, we encourage authors and reviewers to disclose how they have used AI in the research, writing, or evaluation process, particularly if its use could affect the interpretation or originality of the submission. As editors, we will continue to monitor evolving norms and adapt policies accordingly. Our aim is not to restrict tools, but to preserve the integrity of the scholarly process. We aim to strengthen the efficiency, effectiveness, and reliability of the review process. Our goal is to ensure an author experience that is timely and meaningful. To this end, we will streamline the workflows of the editorial desk, including a regularly cadenced review and reconciliation of manuscript assignments, multiple weekly status meetings, and proactive communication with review team members to facilitate the timely completion of their reports. Together we can create a culture of review that supports both rigor and relevance and helps grow ideas rather than simply guard the gate. To ensure this, we will systematically evaluate the performance of our editorial review team. We will provide timely developmental feedback as needed, recognize the efforts of outstanding reviewer contributions, and remove inactive or underperforming review board members when necessary. These steps will be supported by an ongoing reviewer recruitment and development effort, with a focus on expanding the geographic, topical, and methodological diversity of our reviewer pool. We hope the thoughts outlined above prompt additional discussion and meaningful dialogue with our stakeholders. Let us build the future of supply chain management together. To our authors, we invite your best work. To our reviewers, we thank you for upholding high standards with humility. To our readers and industry partners, we remain committed to publishing research that is relevant, rigorous, and resonates. To Beth, Glenn, and the many thought leaders and scholars who, in different ways and at different points in time, have contributed to the Journal's growth and success, we thank you for all your work and for passing the baton on to us. The road ahead will evolve, but we are committed to walking it with purpose, with partners, and with the passion this field deserves. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Esper et al. (Sat,) studied this question.