A bare "no one has studied X" is weak. Position the paper as a contribution to an ongoing operations and supply chain management conversation: what does the field currently believe about this operational phenomenon, what tension or anomaly does your evidence expose, and how does resolving it move the OM conversation forward? Problematize a shared assumption (e.g., that more buffering always helps, that lean and resilience trade off cleanly, that automation uniformly reduces errors) rather than merely noting an empty cell.
Because JOM does not publish purely analytical models or optimization techniques, your positioning should make clear that the contribution is empirical and observed, not a modeling result. Where prior analytical OM work makes assumptions or predictions, your value is often to test them against field/archival/survey/experimental data — "it is the observation that renders the research empirical." Cite the relevant M&SOM / Management Science / Operations Research / Production and Operations Management work, but frame your move as bringing observation to a claim the field has mostly modeled or assumed.
JOM routes to 12 Departments, each with its own mission statement (e.g., Healthcare Operations, Sustainable Operations, Inter-organizational Operations, Intervention Based Research, Technology Management). Read your preferred Department's mission and engage the literature it foregrounds; positioning that ignores the Department's conversation reads as misrouted. The Empirical Research Methods Department additionally expects methodological self-awareness in how you situate the design.
The cues below reflect how empirical-OM reviewers distinguish a conversation-joining front end from a citation list; treat them as interpretive.
| Positioning move | Reads as JOM-ready | Reads as misrouted |
|---|---|---|
| Framing device | Problematizes a shared OM/SCM assumption | "No one has studied X" |
| Stance toward analytical OM | Brings observation to a modeled claim | Argues as a model |
| Department engagement | Joins the preferred Department's debate | Ignores its literature |
An online experiment shows decision-makers systematically over-order after a stockout, beyond newsvendor logic (illustrative). Analytical OM has modeled ordering as rational cost-minimization. The weak positioning says "behavioral ordering is understudied." The JOM-grade positioning enters a live debate — whether observed ordering departs from normative models and why — names the anchor (newsvendor theory and the behavioral-OM stream challenging it), states the tension (persistent post-stockout over-ordering), and frames the wedge: experimental observation that the bias amplifies with disruption salience. Its value is testing observed human decisions against a pattern the analytical literature assumed away.
JOM is an empirical, theory-building operations and supply chain journal, not an analytical-modeling venue; positioning that competes on modeling sophistication rather than observed evidence tends to be redirected — verify against current guidance.
【Conversation】the OM/SCM debate this enters ...
【Assumption problematized】...
【Empirical wedge vs. analytical priors】...
【Department alignment】preferred Department + its conversation ...
【Anchor + tension + adjacent】...
【Next step】jom-methods