SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EDU FALL 2019 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW 1FROM THE EDITOR
U
sually, the editor’s letter in MIT SMR tees up one or more of the ideas
explored in a given issue. This one is different.
This time, I’ll talk about what we look for when we consider articles
for publication. Of course, that’s top of mind for the subject matter
experts who want to reach our audience. But it’s also important to share
our approach with the business leaders and managers who turn to us for insight. After
all, you’re the best judges of whether we’re accomplishing what we set out to do.
So here, in a nutshell, are the kinds of contributions we pursue:What We Publish,
and Why
- Ideas that will help managers navigate an
increasingly digital world. True to our MIT Sloan
roots, we’re keenly interested in the impact of
technology on management: the challenges and
opportunities that arise, the ways in which organiza-
tions and teams must adapt, the skills and mindsets
people need to develop, and the ethical questions
they confront. Sometimes MIT SMR authors look at
how organizations are experimenting with particu-
lar tools and technologies — for instance, in this
issue, approaches to analytics that can help groups
collaborate more effectively and algorithmic meth-
ods that VC investors can use to make smarter,
less-biased decisions about which new ventures to
fund. But more often, our articles address manage-
ment problems with broader digital relevance, in
core areas like leadership, strategy, innovation,
talent management, and organizational culture. - Evidence-based thinking. Reasonable people
can disagree about a well-supported idea — their
own research or experience may very well point
them in different directions. But when we consider
articles for publication, we’re on the lookout for
rigorous, evidence-based thinking. Of course,
evidence comes in many forms. Compelling argu-
ments can draw on lab experiments, field studies,
data analysis, deep industry experience, a synthesis
of others’ findings, or some combination of those
things. Whatever the source of expertise, we try to
clearly signal it through the article’s framing and
references, because readers tell us they want to know
why it’s worth paying attention to a particular idea.
It’s one of the main reasons we include endnotes in
a publication for practitioners. Another is to allow
our expert authors an easy, inobtrusive way of pro-
viding scholarly context for readers who want it.- Accessible frameworks and recommenda-
tions. Rigor is necessary but not sufficient. Our
readers are busy, and they seek utility. We pursue
cogent ideas with practical upsides, and we make
every effort to help authors articulate their argu-
ments clearly and concisely. That’s not to say that
every piece has a “how to” element. Some articles
are more why than how. Others give us new ways of
thinking about perennial challenges. But we hope
that they all, in some way, help managers do their
jobs more effectively and prepare for the future.
With those goals in mind, please let us know
how we’re doing. How useful do you think our
articles are? What kinds of ideas would you like
to see us explore more often or in greater depth?
Where do you think we’re missing the mark?
You can comment on individual articles on our
website or through social media or send us general
feedback at [email protected]. We’re eager to
hear from you.
Lisa Burrell //@lburrell
Editorial Director
MIT Sloan Management Review