Human Relations
Human Relations has had a long tradition of bringing social science disciplines together in order to understand the character and complexity of human problems. We publish incisive investigations from an international network of leading scholars in management, psychology, sociology, politics, anthropology and economics.
Mission statement
This note states briefly the mission of the journal. It then gives detail and elaboration.
Human Relations addresses the social relations in and around work – across the levels of immediate personal relationships, organizations and their processes, and wider political and economic systems. It is international in its scope. The journal is grounded in critical social science that challenges orthodoxies and questions current organizational structures and practices. It promotes interdisciplinarity through studies that draw on more than one discipline or that engage critically across disciplinary traditions. It deploys any social science method used in a rigorous manner. It promotes studies that draw out the practical implication of their results in a manner consistent with critical engagement with practice as opposed to advice to particular actors or groups.
Process and background
The mission statement has been produced as part of the journal's self-reflection about its aims and purpose, inspired in part by its 70th anniversary in 2017. The first issue in 1947 declared the focus to be 'community problems' and 'interpersonal and inter-group tensions', together with studies developing theory relevant to these topics. The subsequent evolution of the journal is discussed in reflections on its history by Editor-in-Chief Professor Paul Edwards (available here). The present notes are the latest iteration (April 2016). A central part of the evolution was the tightening of the focus to work, the workplace, and linkages between this sphere and other aspects of society. The phrase 'the social relations in and around work' was developed in 2006 to summarize the focus. This remains the key interest.
The notes have been prepared after debate in the editorial team and discussion with the Editorial Board, our publishers, and the journal's Editorial Management Committee. This last body oversees the strategy of the journal, with membership comprising representatives of the Tavistock Institute (which co-founded the journal in 1947 and currently owns it) and the publishers, together with an independent Chair, the Editor-in-Chief and the Managing Editor. It is none the less impossible to define exactly the identity of a journal in a way that everyone would accept. Nor is it possible to specify a precise boundary between the journal and the many journals that address work, employment, and organization studies. The features highlighted here are thus indicative rather than absolute.
Substantive focus
The journal retains its specific focus on 'the social relations in and around work'. The boundaries of 'work' have been extended massively in the past 20 years to embrace voluntary work, work in the home, the 'informal economy' and many other types of economic activity. We make no definitive statement as to what constitutes work. But we focus on social relationships around the production of goods and services in the private, public, and not-for-profit sectors; these relationships generally occur within organizations with hierarchies of power and authority. This focus would include, for example, voluntary work where it occurs within an imperatively co-ordinated organization but would generally exclude hobbies or activities in voluntary associations such as sports clubs. We include relationships with non-human 'actants' such as technologies.
The journal thus addresses all three levels of the 'micro' (immediate relationships between people), the 'meso' (organizations and their rules, processes and structures) and the 'macro' (the wider economy and society, which embraces the global economy and the systemic nature of capitalism and other modes of production). We generally exclude analyses that are wholly or mainly about the last level, for example, the development of a global production system or educational systems. We also tend to exclude accounts of organization as an overall social process, as distinct from an analysis of the linkages between such a process and relationships in the sphere of work.
We address in particular linkages between work and the wider political, social and economic context in which work is embedded, for example, relationships between paid work and the family and the links between work and equality and inequality. 'Social relations' thus mean more than direct relationships between people. They include the interplay between 'structure' and 'action' and the ways in which direct social relationships produce, reproduce and shape influences that are part of the structure of a situation. The environment of an organization, for example, is not an asocial thing but is itself socially shaped, and its influences are also socially defined. We aim to sustain analyses that build on such perspectives.
Disciplinary focus
The journal welcomes contributions from all social science disciplines. We are in particular an interdisciplinary social science journal, sitting between generalist journals in such fields as management studies and those with a specific disciplinary focus. The journal is grounded in 'critical social science' in a broad sense. It is not limited to Critical Theory or Critical Management Studies, for example, but takes 'critical' to embrace any approach that challenges orthodoxies, aims to understand the processes generating things that are taken for granted and the reasons why they are taken for granted or poses questions about current ways in which organizations are structured and managed.
The journal aims to contribute to the understanding of the contemporary world of work by making linkages across disciplines, while recognizing the difficulty of this task. In the first issue, the strapline 'towards the integration of the social sciences' was adopted. This strapline was removed in the 1990s on the grounds that integration was hard to define and that progress towards it even harder to demonstrate, to say nothing of arguments that social science may need to develop distinctive sub-fields and specialisms. While recognizing that the initial ambition may have been grand and even naive, we assert the value of disciplines speaking to each other and of drawing on different disciplines to address substantive issues in the world of work.
Practice
The journal's approach to practice reflects the intersection of two things: the commitment to critically informed scholarship; and the journal's long tradition, linked with its roots in the Tavistock Institute, of a concern with improving working lives and even with emancipation. The essence of the idea was captured by one of the journal's, and institute's, founding figures, Elliott Jaques. He led the famous Glacier research project, which began as a piece of scientific inquiry. After the funded research ended, he was hired by the firm as a consultant. Reflecting on his approach (in issue 4, 1964, of the journal) he stressed that his method was not to offer advice to do a particular thing, but rather make comments such as: 'the following factors may help to resolve this issue' or 'there seems to be an inconsistency between current proposals and previous decisions'. We thus expect papers, where this is appropriate, to reflect on the implications for practice of their results. Discussion of the ethical and other issues of how research can engage with practice is also a feature of the journal. Specific recommendations as to what a particular actor or group might do are generally outside the journal's remit.
Research methods
The journal welcomes contributions using any social science method, as long as they apply the method rigorously in line with best practice in that field. In line with our focus on actual social relationships in the world of work, we do not publish work based wholly or mainly on lab experiments, or drawing mainly on student samples, but will consider these research designs in concert with field data. We appreciate the power of field-based experiments/quasi-experiments with employees that combine the potential for strong inference with ecological validity not often found in the lab.
In relation to survey-based papers we endorse the movement away from single-respondent and cross-section designs towards multi-level and/or longitudinal studies. Cross-section designs may, however, be entirely appropriate in circumstances including: the novelty of the research in terms of topic or empirical location; limitations on research access; and evidence that allows causal inferences to be sustained. Papers using all kinds of qualitative methods are encouraged. They are expected to offer appropriate kinds of generalization, for example, by locating a case study within extant research and discussing the reasons why the case was as it was.
The journal's remit is not centrally research methods as such. Critical analyses of research methodology in the broad sense of the epistemology of research and the politics of the research process are encouraged. Narrower papers developing or validating research instruments will not generally fit our remit.
Geographical scope
The journal has an international focus. It welcomes studies of and contributions from any region of the world.
Click here for more specific guidance for contributors.
Click here to see our data requirements for articles.
Publication ethics and antiplagiarism checks
Human Relations uses iThenticate CrossCheck™ antiplagiarism software to check if manuscript content has already been published elsewhere.
Human Relations is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for journal editors.
Preparation and submission guidance
Please do read our guidance How to prepare and submit an article and do not hesitate to contact the Editorial Office at humanrelationsjournal@tavinstitute.org if you have any queries or problems with the submission process – we would be only too pleased to help!
Aim
Human Relations is an international peer reviewed journal, which publishes the highest quality original research to advance our understanding of social relationships at and around work through theoretical development and empirical investigation.
Scope
Human Relations seeks high quality research papers that extend our knowledge of social relationships at work and organizational forms, practices and processes that affect the nature, structure and conditions of work and work organizations.
Human Relations welcomes manuscripts that seek to cross disciplinary boundaries in order to develop new perspectives and insights into social relationships and relationships between people and organizations.
Human Relations encourages strong empirical contributions that develop and extend theory as well as more conceptual papers that integrate, critique and expand existing theory.
Human Relations welcomes critical reviews and essays:
- Critical reviews advance a field through new theory, new methods, a novel synthesis of extant evidence, or a combination of two or three of these elements. Reviews that identify new research questions and that make links between management and organizations and the wider social sciences are particularly welcome. Surveys or overviews of a field are unlikely to meet these criteria.
- Critical essays address contemporary scholarly issues and debates within the journal's scope. They are more controversial than conventional papers or reviews, and can be shorter. They argue a point of view, but must meet standards of academic rigour. For more detailed guidance please refer to Ogbonnaya, C., & Brown, A. D. (2023). Editorial: Crafting review and essay articles for Human Relations. Human Relations, 76(3), 365–394.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267221148440
Human Relations encourages research that relates social theory to social practice and translates knowledge about human relations into prospects for social action and policy-making that aims to improve working lives.
Human Relations encourages the uses of methods that are appropriate to both the research context and research questions and therefore welcomes both qualitative and quantitative methods and innovative methods of investigation and analysis.
| Smriti Anand | Illinois Institute of Technology, USA |
| Penny Dick | University of Sheffield, UK |
| Andrew D Brown | University of Bath, UK |
| Zhijun Chen | Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, China |
| Rafael Alcadipani | FGV EAESP Brazil |
| Mayowa Babalola | University of Western Australia, Australia |
| Mina Beigi | University of Southampton, UK |
| Guowei Jian | Cleveland State University, USA |
| Tae-Yeol Kim | China Europe International Business School, China |
| Juliette Koning | Maastricht University, Netherlands |
| Helena Liu | University of Technology Sydney, Australia |
| Chidiebere Ogbonnaya | University of Kent, UK |
| Ajnesh Prasad | Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico |
| Yasin Rofcanin | University of Bath, UK |
| Melanie Simms | University of Glasgow, UK |
| Karan Sonpar | University College Dublin, Ireland |
| Jakob Stollberger | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands |
| Ghazal Mir Zulfiqar | Lahore University of Management Sciences, Pakistan |
| Michael A. Johnson | Louisiana State University, USA |
| Maria Adamson | Queen Mary University of London, UK |
| Fahreen Alamgir | Monash University, Australia |
| Kerstin Alfes | ESCP Europe, Germany |
| Mats Alvesson | Lund University, Sweden |
| Kara Arnold | Memorial University, Canada |
| Jeremy Aroles | University of York, UK |
| Sam Aryee | University of Surrey, UK |
| Rachel Ashworth | Cardiff University, UK |
| Erhan Aydin | IPAG Business School, France |
| Nick Bacon | City, University of London |
| David C. Baldridge | Oregon State University, USA |
| Marcos Barros | Grenoble School of Management, France |
| Michelle Barton | Johns Hopkins University, USA |
| Yehuda Baruch | University of Southampton, UK |
| Liuba Belkin | Lehigh University, USA |
| Emma Bell | Open University, UK |
| Yvonne Benschop | Radboud University, Netherlands |
| Aykut Berber | University of West of England, UK |
| Zografia Bika | University of East Anglia, UK |
| Sarah Blithe | University of Colorado Boulder, USA |
| Jonathan Booth | London School of Economics, UK |
| Mehdi Boussebaa | University of Glasgow, UK |
| Steven Brown | Nottingham Trent University, UK |
| Patrick Bruning | University of New Brunswick, Canada |
| Patrice M Buzzanell | University of South Florida, USA |
| Jamie Callahan | Durham University, UK |
| Andy Charlwood | Leeds University, UK |
| Tingting Chen | Lingnang University, Hong Kong, China |
| Minyoung Cheong | Kyung Hee University, South Korea |
| Jin Nam Choi | Seoul National University, Korea |
| Aichia Chuang | University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA |
| Catherine Connelly | McMaster University, Canada |
| Alessia Contu | UMass, USA |
| Neil Conway | Royal Holloway, University of London, UK |
| Alison Cook | Utah State University, USA |
| Cecily D. Cooper | University of Miami, USA |
| François Cooren | University of Montreal, Canada |
| John Cullen | Maynooth University, Ireland |
| Kevin Daniels | University of East Anglia, UK |
| Sadhvi Dar | Queen Mary University of London, UK |
| Emily David | National University of Singapore, Singapore |
| Katleen De Stobbeleir | Vlerick Business School, Belgium |
| Tobias Dennerlein | University of Navarra, Spain |
| Rory Donnelly | University of Liverpool, UK |
| Michaela Driver | New Mexico State University, USA |
| Michael Eaves | Valdosta State University, USA |
| Paul Edwards | University of Birmingham, UK |
| Tony Edwards | Loughborough University London, UK |
| Carole Elliott | Sheffield University, UK |
| Cécile Emery | University of Surrey, UK |
| Gail T Fairhurst | University of Cincinnati, USA |
| David Fan | RMIT University, Australia |
| Ziyun Fan | University of York, UK |
| John Ferguson | University of St Andrews, UK |
| Jackie Ford | Durham University, UK |
| William Foster | University of Alberta, Canada |
| Marianna Fotaki | Warwick Business School, UK |
| Amy Fraher | Yale School of Management, USA |
| Jerry (Bryan) Fuller | Louisiana Tech University, USA |
| Elizabeth George | University of Auckland Business School, New Zealand |
| Fabiola Gerpott | WHU Otto Beisheim School of Management, Germany |
| Koustab Ghosh | Indian Institute of Management Rohtak, India |
| Stephanie Giamporcaro | Nottingham Trent University, UK |
| Sarah Gilmore | Cardiff University, UK |
| Jean-Pascal Gond | City’s Business School, UK |
| Steven Granger | University of Calgary, Canada |
| Christopher Grey | Royal Holloway University of London, UK |
| Irena Grugulis | University of Leeds, UK |
| Joseph G. Grzywacz, Ph.D. | Florida State University, USA |
| Marco Guerci | University of Milan, Italy |
| Laura Guillén | Esade Ramon Llull University, Spain |
| Stefanie Gustafsson | University of Bath, UK |
| Philip Hancock | University of Essex, UK |
| Ashley Hardin | Washington University, USA |
| Nancy Harding | University of Bath, UK |
| Bill Harley | University of Melbourne, Australia |
| Brian Harney | Dublin City University, Ireland |
| Geraint Harvey | Western University, Canada |
| Jean-François Harvey | HEC Montréal, Canada |
| Rebecca Hewett | Erasmus University, Netherlands |
| Giles Hirst | Australian National University, Australia |
| Donald Hislop | University of Aberdeen, UK |
| David Holman | Manchester Business School, UK |
| Fabian Homberg | LUISS Business School, Italy |
| Kim Hoque | King’s Business School, UK |
| Severin Hornung | University of Innsbruck, Austria |
| Kate Horton | Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands |
| Jasmine Hu | Ohio State University, USA |
| Xu Huang | Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong |
| Guy Huber | Oxford Brookes University, UK |
| Farid Jahantab | The Pennsylvania State University – Scranton, USA |
| Lee Jarvis | IESEG School of Management, France |
| Young-Chul Jeong | Concordia University, Canada |
| Yuan Jiang | Harbin Institute of Technology, China |
| Gary Johns | Concordia University, Canada |
| Peter J. Jordan | Griffith University, Australia |
| Dan Kärreman | Copenhagen Business School, Denmark |
| D Christopher Kayes | The George Washington University, USA |
| Simon Kelly | University of Huddersfield, UK |
| Kate Kenny | Queens University, Belfast, UK |
| Svetlana Khapova | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands |
| Angela Knox | University of Sydney, Australia |
| Dejun (Tony) Kong | University of Colorado Boulder, USA |
| Tim Kuhn | University of Colorado, USA |
| Mukta Kulkarni | Indian Institute of Management Bangalore, India |
| Smirti Kutaula | Kingston University London, UK |
| Ho Kwong Kwan | China Europe International Business School, China |
| Kim Kyoung Yong | City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China |
| Catherine Lam | City University of Hong Kong, China |
| Brenda A. Lautsch | Simon Fraser University, Canada |
| Mark Learmonth | Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK |
| Yih-teen Lee | IESE Business School, Spain |
| Jian Liang | Tongji University, China |
| Xiowan (Lucy) Lin | University of Macau, Macau, China |
| Dirk Lindebaum | Grenoble School of Management, France |
| Stephen Linstead | University of York, UK |
| Yukun Liu | Zhejiang University, China |
| Matthew Lyle | University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, USA |
| Elise Marescaux | IESEG School of Management, France |
| Angela Martinez Dy | Loughborough University, UK |
| Darren McCabe | University of Lancaster, UK |
| Gerry McGivern | University of Warwick, UK |
| Paul McGrath | University College Dublin, Ireland |
| Elina Meliou | Brunel University London, UK |
| Mariella Miraglia | University of Liverpool, UK |
| Arjun Mitra | California State University , USA |
| Rahul Mitra | Wayne State University, USA |
| Johanna Moisander | Aalto University, Finland |
| Kevin Morrell | Durham University, UK |
| Farooq Mughal | University of Bath, UK |
| Dennis Mumby | University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA |
| Iain Munro | Newcastle University, UK |
| Daniel Muzio | University of York, UK |
| Lukas Neville | University of Manitoba, Canada |
| Karina M. Nielsen | University of Sheffield, UK |
| Karen Niven | University of Manchester, UK |
| Emmanuel Ogbonna | Cardiff University, UK |
| Clifford Oswick | Cass Business School, UK |
| YoungAh Park | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA |
| Jane Parker | Massey University, New Zealand |
| Simon Parker | University of Nottingham, UK |
| Federica Pazzaglia | UCD Dublin, Ireland |
| Gianpiero Petriglieri | INSEAD, France |
| Paraskevas Petrou | Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands |
| Rebecca Pieniazek | University of Leeds, UK |
| Amanda Porter | VU University Amsterdam, Netherlands |
| Paolo Quattrone | University of Manchester, UK |
| Chris Rees | Royal Holloway, UK |
| Tara Reich | King's College London, UK |
| Christian Resick | Drexel University, USA |
| Carl Rhodes | UTS Sydney, Australia |
| Kathleen Riach | University of Glasgow, UK |
| Wladislaw Rivkin | University College Dublin, Ireland |
| Sarah Robinson | University of Glasgow, UK |
| Jenny Rodriguez | Manchester University, UK |
| Alexander Romney | Utah State University, USA |
| Steve Sauerwald | University of Illinois, USA |
| Sebastian C. Schuh | China Europe International Business School, China |
| Rosalind Searle | University of Glasgow, UK |
| Amanda Shantz | University of St.Gallen, Switzerland |
| Ruodan Shao | York University, Canada |
| Mathew Sheep | Illinois State University, USA |
| Samir Shrivastava | University of South Australia, Australia |
| Rui Shu | Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, China |
| Sabina Siebert | University of Glasgow, UK |
| Shuchi Sinha | Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, India |
| Rieneke Slager | University of Groningen, The Netherlands |
| Jonas Söderlund | BI Norwegian Business School, Norway |
| Dimitrios Spyridonidis | University of Warwick, UK |
| Jawad Syed | Lahore University of Management Sciences, Pakistan |
| Gary Thurgood | Utah State University, USA |
| Dean Tjosvold | Lingnan University, Hong Kong |
| Gergana Todorova | California State University, Fullerton, USA |
| Olga Tregaskis | University of East Anglia, UK |
| Min-Hsuan Tu | University at Buffalo, USA |
| Nick Turner | University of Calgary, Canada |
| William H. Turnley | Kansas State University, USA |
| Kerrie Unsworth | Leeds University Business School, UK |
| Lisa Van Der Werff | Dublin City University, Ireland |
| Koen Van Laer | Hasselt University, Belgium |
| Christian Vandenberghe | HEC Montréal, Canada |
| Biju Varkkey | Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, India |
| Ian Walsh | Bentley University, USA |
| An-Chih Wang | China Europe International Business School, China |
| Jie Wang | Nottingham University Business School in China, China |
| Lena Wang | RMIT University, Australia |
| Rob Wapshott | University of Nottingham, UK |
| Tony J. Watson | Nottingham University Business School, UK |
| Oliver Weigelt | University of Leipzig, Germany |
| Justin Weinhardt | University of Calgary, Canada |
| Suze Wilson | Massey University, New Zealand |
| Patrick Wright | University of South Carolina, USA |
| Chia-Huei Wu | Durham University, UK |
| I-Heng (Ray) Wu | University of South Alabama, USA |
| Kyoung-Hee Yu | University of Technology Sydney, Australia |
| Xiaoyu (Allen) Yu | School of Management of Shanghai University |
| Lu Zhang | Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology , South Korea |
| Hao Zhao | CEIBS, China |
| Heather Zoller | University of Cincinnati, USA |
| Anna Zueva | University of Huddersfield, UK |
For a detailed set of Instructions to Authors and information on the online manuscript submission system, please visit:
https://www.humanrelationsjournal.org/journal/submission-guidelines/
English Language Editing Services: Please click here for information on professional English language editing services recommended by Sage.
Guidance for contributors
- Articles must advance knowledge, and make a strong theoretical and/or empirical contribution to the literature on work relationships and organizational work processes.
- Authors should use clear English comprehensible to readers outside of their area of specialism.
- Authors should ensure that their methods section is not too long, avoiding overly long explanations of why particular norms and standards have been chosen.
- Where relevant, details may be provided in an appendix or a separate document that readers may download as a data supplement or seek direct from the author.
- Articles must be original research and must not have already been published or be under consideration for publication elsewhere.
- All quotations from published work, including any of the author’s own previous work, must be acknowledged as such and fully cited. (Authors may only repeat the method from their own previous published works without citation.)
- One of our current goals is to continue—as well as highlight for readers—ongoing threads of conversation across works published in the journal. Toward that end, we ask that you review recent issues to ensure that you are connecting to any relevant works in ways that take the conversation forward.
- Do describe in your cover letter how the paper is adding to a conversation in the journal. For instance what 3-4 papers from HR have served as the foundation for your work, or stimulated your thoughts?
- Articles that merely offer scores along or describe relationships between chosen empirical measures, with commentary on the efficaciousness of techniques adopted in measurement, are not suitable for Human Relations. An exception might be made if you present a technical or methodological critique of a particular tool of analysis, thus carrying forward an important debate which engages more than one area of scientific interest.
- Studies referring to simulation exercises involving students or others without experiential knowledge of the simulated context are discouraged. For example, while work team simulations with undergraduate students cannot provide the sole basis of papers considered for publication, the same simulations with Executive MBA students (who are working full-time while going to school) or more generally who have prior experience working in ‘real’ teams proffers a higher likelihood of favourable review.
- Field-study results are more likely to be accepted if they use more than a single technique of data collection and analysis. You should strengthen the validity of, for example, questionnaire scales or constructs by considering multiple influences in the context of the field study.
- We encourage articles with strong research methods, and particularly those that use longitudinal design.
- We welcome articles that deploy novel or emerging research methods. We do not normally publish articles that address mainly research design or methods, for example those developing or testing research instruments. Articles discussing methodology in a wider sense are welcome.
- Human Relations uses CrossCheck™ powered by iThenticate software to check if manuscript content has already been published elsewhere. Human Relations is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for journal editors.
- Papers containing a poor standard of English language are less likely to be considered for review.
PRE-ACCEPTANCE ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDITING: Authors who would like to refine the use of English in their manuscripts might consider using professional editing services—details of companies offering professional editing services can be found using an Internet search engine. There are a variety of services available, including the service offered by our publisher.
Please be aware that Human Relations and the Tavistock Institute have no affiliation with any of these companies offering professional editing services, and make no endorsement of any particular company, including the service offered above. An author’s use of a professional editing service in no way guarantees that his or her submission will ultimately be accepted. Any arrangement an author enters into will be exclusively between the author and the professional editing service company, and any costs incurred are the sole responsibility of the author.
Data requirements for articles
Some very short reflections
The editorial team ‘desk rejects’ about half of all the articles we receive. This note comments on one reason, the nature of the data deployed. Its purpose is to contribute to the raising of standards. Work that was acceptable in the past may not be published today, and colleagues need to be aware of what we are looking for. Two preliminary remarks set the comments in context.
First, new empirical data are not required. We publish articles presenting theory development, critical and analytical reviews, and interventions in current areas of controversy (e.g. articles in 2013 by Lindebaum and Zundel in June and by Nielsen and by Mingers and Willmott in August). We particularly welcome articles that address the big issues, including meta-analysis and careful qualitative reviews of a field.
Second, in empirical papers, suitable data are a necessary but not sufficient feature to get to full peer review. We also need many other things, including a strong theoretical motivation for a study and an explanation of the importance of the contribution. Spotting a gap is not enough. Why does the gap matter, and has filling it told us anything of general importance?
Turning to the question of data, perhaps the most common reason for rejecting quantitative papers is a reliance on single-respondent cross-section designs. Such designs are not necessarily wrong. They can work well where, for example, mainly factual data are collected and where causal analysis is either not the purpose or where causal inferences can be justified. Similarly, hard-to-reach or marginalized populations may afford only cross-sectional research access. But, all in all, cross-sectional designs have well-rehearsed limitations for causal analysis, and there are now many alternatives including longitudinal and multi-level designs.
We need to say a little more about qualitative data, specifically interview data. We are aiming to move away from papers that present only a limited number of interviews without appropriate contextual or comparative information. We are certainly not saying that more is necessarily better, though it is the case that we need enough weight of evidence to sustain the points being made. Small numbers of interviews can be acceptable where there is a genuine reason for an exploratory account, where the interviews are tightly focused within an occupation or other group of interest, or are consistent with an detail-intensive analytical approach (e.g., conversation analysis, interpretative phenomenological analysis).
Human Relations aims to promote high quality social science. The above comments suggest ways in which this goal can be pursued. They are to an extent objectives rather than prescriptions: progress is likely to occur slowly, and there are many valid ways of conducting research. We hope, however, that they both indicate an overall aspiration and help to explain what we will be looking for in individual papers. One measure will be whether desk rejects on grounds of data inadequacy become rarer.
Publication ethics and antiplagiarism checks
Human Relations uses iThenticate CrossCheck™ antiplagiarism software to check if manuscript content has already been published elsewhere.
Human Relations is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for journal editors.
Preparation and submission guidance
Please do read the below guidance How to prepare and submit an article and do not hesitate to contact the Editorial Office if you have any queries or problems with the submission process – we would be only too pleased to help.
Submission checklist
- Read our Aims and Scope, Mission Statement, Guidance for contributors and data requirements.
- Read ‘How to prepare your submission’. This document includes the formatting requirements for Human Relations (e.g., how to format headings, references, and tables). You may download this document here.
- Read ‘How to submit your article online’ below. You may download this document here.
- Prepare an electronic version of your cover letter providing details about originality, online versions, data set usage elsewhere, etc.
- Prepare any supplementary files (e.g. other article[s] using the same data set plus a table showing differences and similarities).
- Obtain permissions for any reuse from copyright holders.
- Obtain release forms for worldwide online publication of any images of identifiable people or places.
- Prepare an electronic version of your manuscript in Microsoft Word that does not exceed 45 correctly formatted pages in total.
- State in your manuscript whether or not you have used pseudonyms for study participants (people and organizations).
- Read How to help readers find your article and check that your title, abstract and keywords all help to make your article more discoverable in online searches.
- Prepare your reference list.
- Prepare any tables.
- Prepare any figures.
- Prepare any supplementary material files intended for online-only publication.
- Check that none of the electronic documents contain viruses.
- Check that your manuscript (and response to reviewers, if submitted) does not include author names or details or any other information that might enable reviewers to identify any of the authors.
- Read ‘How to submit your article online’ below.
- Submit your manuscript online.
How to prepare your submission
How to submit your article online
Download information on the online manuscript submission system