Outside of the general departmental submission and review system, JOM also supports a handful of special-purpose discussions, including special issue editorials, invited technical notes and forum discussions. 

Forum Discussions consist of two key elements. The first is a short discussion-starting ‘stem’ manuscript (1500-3000 words), on a contemporary topic for which differing or nuanced views may exist within the Operations Management community. Fundamentally, these stem-articles serve as vehicles through which ideas and debate on such evolving or controversial topics can be encouraged. These by-invitation-only pieces are intentionally solicited by (or written by) the EiCs based on extant conversations among authors, and are designed to further propel such conversations through contributions (commentary) by additional EiC-invited discussants (300-1000 words per additional invited contribution). With that in mind, contributors of stem-articles are asked to also list potential commentators that may have (1) aligned, (2) nuanced and (3) alternative view points; with at least two names of established researchers for each of these 3 categories. The process for reviewing original stem-articles is handled jointly by the EiCs, typically with the involvement of another senior-level editor with topical expertise. That additional editor may or may not be part of the first round of ‘commentary’ (typically 2-3 invited individuals). That commentary is also reviewed by the EiCs before a second round of ‘commentary’ is invited. Use of additional rounds of commentary will be subject to the discretion of the EiCs. Closing commentary may be provided by the EiCs as well (uncredited apart from their EiC roles).

Technical Notes should be positioned as clarifications or direct extensions on the theory, methods, or findings of prior work. They might clarify how a theoretical or conceptual framework might be improved on, or more consistently or contingently applied, or how an approach to inquiry might be better applied in empirical work (if not clearly a methods extension, suitable to an EM submission). Alternatively, the note might sharpen distinctions or definitions  regarding an operational process that has been studied but for which nuance needs to be expanded upon for future OM research purposes. If motivated by a relatively recent work (e.g. last five years) the TN should be written by authors other than merely those contributing the original papers that inspire these notes (these are not ‘addendums’ or ‘errata’). In such cases the intent is not for the piece to be adversarial but constructive and aimed at outlining caveats. Over a longer timeframe, or in cases where notes are justified in recognition of award-winning work, original authors can be involved in revisiting the assumptions and insights that they previously published on. In all cases, such work might not require empirical evidence - though, authors of TNs can strengthen their cases with it. If authors raise something ultimately controversial that warrants further discussion, then EICs can extend the dialogue through opening up Forum discussions around these pieces. What a TN should not be: ‘new empirical methods’ pieces, or ‘new empirical inquiry’ pieces. Those have a different path through either the methods department or as other regular departmental (or SI where permitting) submissions. In their contribution, technical notes should draw on ‘what the collective community of scholars and practitioners know’; rather than attempt to provide original findings or original methods.