It is a privilege to assume the role of Editor-in-Chief of Thunderbird International Business Review (TIBR), one of the oldest academic journals dedicated to international business research. I do so with gratitude to the outgoing Editor, Mary Teagarden, who has provided exceptional leadership of the journal and has left it in a strong position. Mary has served in this role since 2006, providing two decades of steady stewardship that have helped shape the journal's identity and trajectory. Under her leadership, TIBR has continued to publish work that is internationally oriented, intellectually rigorous, and directly relevant to managers, policymakers, and scholars concerned with the realities of global business. During Mary's tenure, Thunderbird International Business Review has also strengthened its scholarly visibility and influence. The journal's Impact Factor has climbed steadily, and citation metrics show an ongoing upward trend in the frequency with which TIBR articles are cited, suggesting that the research published in the journal is increasingly resonating within the international business community. These developments reflect the cumulative effects of thoughtful editorial leadership, dedicated reviewers, diligent staff, and high-quality submissions. Editorial transitions naturally invite reflection. The goal of this editorial is not to redirect TIBR in a radical way, but rather to build on its established identity while sharpening and clarifying what makes the journal distinctive. In this sense, I see strong continuity with the journal's past, coupled with selective evolution in emphasis and practice. A useful starting point for my editorial approach is a simple question: Is the paper interesting? I draw here on Davis's (1971) seminal argument about why some studies are seen as interesting while others are experienced as uninteresting, even when both are equally rigorous. In Davis's view, research is uninteresting when it affirms audiences' already existing assumptions. In other words, uninteresting work refines prior explanations without challenging the foundations on which they rest. For example, a study showing that the relationship between executive stock options and firm performance is the same in a new country context as it is in the United States, or that gender diversity in organizations is lower in countries characterized by more traditional gender-role norms, may be empirically sound. However, such findings are unlikely to be interesting because they simply confirm what previous studies have already shown or what most readers would easily assume. Similarly, work that adds another variable, tests a minor moderation, or slightly extends an established model may improve precision, but it rarely feels interesting because it does not challenge underlying assumptions about how a phenomenon works. In contrast, research becomes interesting when it denies or challenges an audience's taken-for-granted assumptions and alters how readers understand a phenomenon, rather than simply confirming what they already believe. Interestingness is not only about precision or technical sophistication. It is about cognitive surprise. For example, Davis (1971) suggests that interesting research may show that what initially appears to be individual choice is in fact socially determined, as illustrated by Kostova and Zaheer's (1999) work demonstrating that what is often assumed to be autonomous managerial choice in multinational subsidiaries is deeply shaped by institutional pressures for legitimacy in host environments. Similarly, interesting research may show that what was initially thought to be a universal finding is contextually contingent, as reflected in Aguilera and Jackson's (2003) research demonstrating that governance mechanisms rooted in agency theory—such as incentive-based executive compensation—do not operate uniformly across countries. One misconception is that a study is interesting simply because it has not been done before. In my experience as a reviewer and editor, many manuscripts equate novelty with absence: the phenomenon has not yet been examined in this country, this industry, or with this dataset. Yet the fact that a study has not been conducted previously does not, by itself, make it interesting or important. A paper can be first and still trivial. Novelty becomes meaningful only when it is tied to insight—when a study reveals something that changes how we understand a phenomenon, challenges an existing assumption, or exposes a blind spot in prevailing theory. I was reminded of this distinction early in my own work on institutional variation within the developing world (e.g., Ault 2016; Ault and Spicer 2020). I initially framed this research around the idea that scholars had focused heavily on differences between developed and developing countries, but had devoted far less attention to variation among developing countries themselves. For example, many studies examine how China differs from the United States, often implicitly treating China as a proxy for the entire developing world. Far fewer studies, however, examine how China differs from Costa Rica, Chad, or Cameroon. My original argument was that cross-national variation among developing countries had not been studied before. The response I repeatedly received in conference discussions and reviews was telling: “Of course, China is different from Cameroon—we do not need a study to establish that,” or “the companies we typically study are not going into Cameroon anyway, so why should we care?” This feedback forced me to rethink my contribution. The more meaningful question was not whether these countries differ, but how they differ, why those differences arise, and why those differences matter for entrepreneurship, strategy, and policy. The insight was not in being first to compare China to Cameroon, but in explaining mechanisms and consequences. At the same time, denying assumptions does not mean claiming to overturn entire theoretical traditions. Assertions that a single study invalidates institutional theory, the resource-based view, or the eclectic (OLI) paradigm may technically challenge prior assumptions and thus fit Davis's definition of interesting research, but they are rarely credible given the cumulative nature of knowledge in these literatures. Interesting research, therefore, walks a fine line: it surfaces something unexpected while remaining meaningfully connected to, and in dialogue with, well-established theoretical frameworks. For TIBR, this means prioritizing work that illuminates important international business phenomena in ways that change how scholars, managers, and policymakers think about them. Interesting papers help us see global business in a different light. They deepen understanding of consequential real-world challenges and generate insights that travel beyond a single context or setting. As a simple self-check, authors might ask whether a reasonably informed reader could have arrived at the core insight on their own without the study. If so, the work may be rigorous, but it is unlikely to be interesting. TIBR is, and will remain, a journal focused squarely on international and global business. We are not a general management outlet with occasional international content. We are interested in research that engages explicitly with cross-national variation, international interdependence, and global or regional patterns. As a result, we prioritize cross-country or multi-country studies, comparative designs, and internationally situated cases. We receive a large number of submissions that examine organizational or managerial phenomena in a single country outside the United States (e.g., India, Ghana). While such single-country studies are often valuable—particularly when they focus on contexts that remain underrepresented in the business literature—the mere fact that a study is conducted outside the United States does not, by itself, make it international or global in orientation. For TIBR, research must meaningfully engage international business theories (e.g., institutional theory, the eclectic paradigm, internalization theory) or address explicitly international phenomena such as foreign direct investment, cross-border transfer of practices, multinational–subsidiary relationships, comparative management, or other forms of cross-national interdependence. TIBR also occupies a deliberately hybrid space between purely academic journals and practitioner outlets. We value theory, but in the service of understanding real problems. We value methods, but in the service of generating insight. In practical terms, this means that strong TIBR papers do two things simultaneously: (1) they offer a clear contribution to scholarly conversations, and (2) they articulate clear implications for practice. What we seek to avoid are papers whose relevance remains implicit or assumed. Authors should explain why their findings matter and to whom. Managerial implications are primary, with policy implications a strong second. Policy-oriented studies are welcome, but they must clearly articulate how their insights connect to business and organizational phenomena (e.g., how policies shape entrepreneurial activity or firm strategy, or how firms influence policy and regulation). TIBR's hybrid identity implies that strong scholarship involves more than technical competence. It requires what might be called scholarly bilingualism: The ability to design and execute rigorous research while also translating insights into language that resonates with managers, policymakers, and other practitioners. Effective dissemination is fundamentally about telling a story—one that is grounded in evidence, attentive to the audience, and clear about why the findings matter. This perspective is not only consistent with Davis's (1971) insight that interesting work denies audiences' expectations rather than merely affirming them, but also highlights that methodology is not separate from the story but part of it. The evidence researchers present should be credible, comprehensible, and appropriate for the audience they seek to reach. Put differently, we encourage phenomenon-driven research that begins with an important international business puzzle and then deploys appropriate theory and method to address it, rather than work that begins with a technique or dataset and searches for an application. In that spirit, we primarily publish empirical work. Although conceptual and review articles can be valuable, TIBR's core identity is grounded in evidence-based inquiry—quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods—that illuminates how international business actually unfolds. One specific area that has generated some confusion among both authors and reviewers is the “View from Practice” category within TIBR. Since taking over as editor, I have encountered submissions that interpret this designation in two problematic ways: Some assume it implies a lower bar for rigor or originality, whereas others interpret it as relaxing the requirement for international or global engagement, using the category to justify accounts focused narrowly on a single domestic firm or local experience. Neither interpretation is correct. A View from Practice article simply reflects a difference in perspective, not in standards, and we very much welcome such submissions. Rather than an academic researcher analyzing a phenomenon from an outsider's perspective, a practitioner shares insights drawn from direct experience within organizations or markets. As with all TIBR articles, View from Practice submissions must offer novel, well-reasoned insights that go beyond description and speak to broader international business questions and implications. In other words, the category changes the identity of the speaker—a third-party observer versus a first-party participant—not the expectations for contribution. Thunderbird International Business Review is published in cooperation with the Thunderbird School of Global Management at Arizona State University and is thus closely connected to the school's broader mission: to educate and inspire visionary leaders who create sustainable, inclusive, and equitable prosperity worldwide. By “sustainable, inclusive, and equitable prosperity worldwide,” Thunderbird refers to economic and social progress that is enduring over time, benefits diverse communities and populations, and is rooted in ethical leadership, cross-cultural understanding, and respect for the dignity of all stakeholders. As faculty of the school, we have a responsibility to advance this mission, and we therefore seek to publish research that, in various ways, contributes to this broader purpose. This does not imply that all submissions must be explicitly framed around sustainability, inclusion, or equity to be appropriate for TIBR. Rather, it reflects an orientation toward international business research that, directly or indirectly, helps illuminate how organizations, entrepreneurs, and institutions contribute to more prosperous, inclusive, and resilient societies, while retaining a clear connection to business, management, or organizational phenomena. Work that speaks meaningfully to issues of development, inequality, sustainability, and societal impact is especially welcome. In practical terms, authors should consider whether their research helps readers better understand how international business activity creates, constrains, or redistributes opportunities and outcomes across people, organizations, and places and, if so, make these implications explicit. International business does not occur in a vacuum. It is shaped by geopolitical shifts, technological discontinuities, social change, and institutional transformation. TIBR actively encourages submissions that engage with contemporary, high-relevance topics such as artificial intelligence, digital platforms, cryptocurrencies and fintech, global supply-chain restructuring, and major global challenges (e.g., climate change or poverty). We are particularly interested in work that uses contemporary challenges not merely as topical backdrops, but as opportunities to revisit core international business theories, surface new mechanisms, and generate genuinely novel insights. Timeliness alone is insufficient; these topics must be examined in depth. But we welcome work that takes the fast-moving nature of today's global environment seriously. As with all submissions to TIBR, engagement with these topics should remain grounded in business, management, or organizational phenomena rather than treating these issues purely as technological, economic, or policy debates. Although no editor's personal interests define a journal's scope, I hope that transparency about my areas of enthusiasm can help stimulate ideas for submissions and conversations. One area of particular interest to me is research on emerging and developing economies that treats these contexts not simply as peripheral settings, but as central to advancing international business theory. A recurring theme in my own work has been that developing countries exhibit substantial institutional heterogeneity, and that understanding this diversity is essential for explaining variation in entrepreneurial activity, organizational forms, business-support policies, and business outcomes. I am therefore especially interested in cross-national comparative research that examines variation within the developing world itself, rather than focusing exclusively on comparisons between advanced and developing economies. Such work can help move the field beyond broad dichotomies toward more nuanced, mechanism-based explanations of how different institutional configurations shape business behavior. I am also particularly interested in research at the intersection of business and social impact, including social entrepreneurship, inclusive finance, and market-based approaches to addressing large societal problems, such as poverty. Much of the existing literature has focused on whether individuals choose to engage in social entrepreneurship or whether socially oriented ventures emerge in particular contexts. Equally important, however, are questions about what persists over time: which types of social ventures survive, which scale, and which can sustain both economic viability and social impact. Work in this tradition shifts attention from entry decisions to outcomes and consequences—examining how national institutional contexts shape the social results of entrepreneurial activity, the risks of mission drift, and the conditions under which commercial and hybrid models can advance inclusive markets. Studies that illuminate not only who starts social ventures but also what survives and why are especially welcome. Finally, I have a strong interest in research that engages with state fragility and governance challenges in fragile settings. Rather than treating weak states as uniformly deficient, this work emphasizes the multi-dimensional nature of state capabilities and the distinct ways in which different forms of institutional weakness create both hazards and opportunities for firms and entrepreneurs. Research in this area can illuminate why business models, organizational forms, and policy interventions that succeed in some low-income or fragile contexts fail in others, and how firms adapt to environments characterized by uncertainty, limited capacity, and uneven rule enforcement. Taken together, these areas address some of the most pressing questions in international business today: How firms operate under institutional constraints, how they contribute to development, and how they navigate environments marked by uncertainty and uneven capacity. In assuming the role of editor, my aim is not to redirect TIBR in a radical way, but to build on the journal's established identity while sharpening and clarifying what makes it distinctive. TIBR will remain a journal that publishes rigorous, internationally oriented, and relevant research. Such work is empirically grounded, theoretically informed, and attentive to consequential real-world problems in global business. I hope this editorial provides greater transparency about what we value, how we think about contribution, and the kinds of conversations we seek to foster. My goal is for TIBR to continue serving as a venue for research that not only meets high scholarly standards but also helps scholars, managers, and policymakers better understand the evolving realities of international business. I warmly invite submissions that engage these priorities. I also extend my sincere thanks to our authors, reviewers, staff, and editorial board members, whose efforts make the journal possible. I look forward to working with this community to continue strengthening Thunderbird International Business Review. The author declares no conflicts of interest. Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Joshua K. Ault (Tue,) studied this question.