Peer review is a critical component toward facilitating a robust science in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Peer review exists beyond academic publishing in organizations, university departments, grant agencies, classrooms, and many more work contexts. Reviewers are responsible for judging the quality of research conducted and submitted for evaluation. Furthermore, they are responsible for treating authors and their work with respect, in a supportive and developmental manner. Given its central role in our profession, it is curious that we do not have formalized review guidelines or standards and that most of us never receive formal training in peer reviewing. To support this endeavor, we are proposing a competency framework for peer review. The purpose of the competency framework is to provide a definition of excellent peer reviewing and guidelines to reviewers for which types of behaviors will lead to good peer reviews. By defining these competencies, we create clarity around expectations for peer review, standards for good peer reviews, and opportunities for training the behaviors required to deliver good peer reviews. We further discuss how the competency framework can be used to improve peer reviewing and suggest additional steps forward that involve suggestions for how stakeholders can get involved in fostering high-quality peer reviewing.

As industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists, we have expertise in applying psychological and/or organizational science to the workplace. However, many of us haven’t taken the time to think about how our I-O psychology knowledge can apply to our teaching practice. We walk through some examples of how I-O psychology research can help us be better teachers, and the goal of our paper is to encourage readers to make evidence-based changes to their teaching based on I-O psychology research. We organize our discussion around four areas: training and development, diversity and inclusion, groups and teams, and leadership. Within each, we offer small, medium, and large changes that could be incorporated into classrooms. We hope that readers will be inspired to build on what they do in their classrooms to help students learn about (and be inspired by) our field.

Prestigious journals are widely admired for publishing quality scholarship, yet the primary indicators of journal prestige (i.e., impact factors) do not directly assess audience admiration. Moreover, the publication landscape has changed substantially in the last 20 years, with electronic publishing changing the way we consume scientific research. Given that it has been 18 years since the publication of the last journal prestige survey of SIOP members, the authors conducted a new survey and used these results to reflect on changing practices within industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. SIOP members (n = 557) rated the prestige and relevance of I-O and management journals. Responses were analyzed according to job setting, and were compared to a survey conducted by Zickar and Highhouse (2001) in 2000. There was considerable consistency in prestige ratings across settings (i.e., management department vs. psychology department; academic vs. applied), especially among the top journals. There was considerable variance, however, in the perceived usefulness of different journals. Results also suggested considerable consistency across the two time periods, but with some increases in prestige among OB-oriented journals. Changes in the journal landscape are discussed, including the rise of OHP as a topic of concentration in I-O. We suggest that I-O programs will continue to attract the top researchers in talent management and OHP, which should result in the use of a broader set of journals for judging I-O program impact.

Training has shown little effectiveness in altering harassing or discriminatory behavior. Limitations of prior intervention efforts may reflect poor conceptualization of the problems involved, poor training intervention design, approaches that engender cynicism, or misunderstanding psychological principles of attitude and behavior change. Interventions should capitalize on behavioral science models and tools at multiple levels from a broad array of disciplines to explain harassment and bias, and then to defeat these behaviors. Measures to ensure fair treatment should focus on leadership socialization, organizational culture and climate, increased professional competence, and integration with organizational approaches to corporate social responsibility and performance.