From the Editors: Looking Forward and Looking Back: Guidelines for the Catalyst and Review Articles in JPIM

Our first editorial (De Luca et al. 2025) outlined new initiatives to further develop and grow the Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM). Two of those initiatives relate to the (further) development and promotion of different article formats compared to the regular manuscripts that can be submitted to JPIM: Catalyst and Review articles. In this short editorial, we would like to provide more information about these article categories for the benefit of both new and existing JPIM authors and readers.

The key intent of the Catalyst and Review articles is to provide different pathways through which authors can contribute state-of-the-art thinking to the journal and advance our knowledge of innovation management theory and practice in a timely manner (i.e., via a more direct and timely review process). These new initiatives contribute to the scholarly mission we set out as the new Co-Editors-in-Chief (Co-EiCs) to continue to strengthen JPIM's position as a global top-tier research journal for cutting-edge, interdisciplinary, socially impactful, and ethically conducted research in the field of innovation management (De Luca et al. 2025).

First, we discuss the repositioning of the Catalyst category. The Catalyst article category was introduced in 2019 by former Co-EiCs Charles Noble and Jelena Spanjol (Noble and Spanjol 2019). The ultimate aim of the Catalyst category has been and will remain to supplement traditional research articles by means of featuring carefully selected essays intended to inspire and stimulate new and leading-edge thinking on innovation management and to ensure the timely dissemination of this new thinking. Catalyst articles were envisioned as a platform for both scholars and experienced practitioners, thus calling for a dialogue among a plurality of voices inside and outside academia.

From the start of the initiative in 2019 (JPIM, Vol. 36, Issue 4) until the end of 2024, 15 Catalyst essays have been published, which, in total, have accumulated over 1800 citations (Google Scholar citations, June 2025). The topics covered are diverse and include, for example, how science fiction can support innovation (Michaud and Appio 2022), the potential of AI for design (Verganti et al. 2020) and new product development (Bouschery et al. 2023), and how knowledge and experience by Indigenous and tribal peoples may redefine the innovation landscape (Vassallo et al. 2023).

Considering the interest and impact of the published Catalyst papers as new Co-EiCs, we will continue with this category. In doing so, we reposition the Catalyst category by adding further emphasis on novel thinking as a necessary and distinguishing feature of these articles. With the Catalyst category, we aim to publish essays that are interesting and provocative, not necessarily conforming to standard knowledge paradigms or disciplinary orthodoxies. Our vision for Catalyst essays is to spark important new debates and discussions on innovation management that move beyond the status quo, which is why novel thinking is essential. While we acknowledge that the term ‘novel’ can be interpreted in different ways, we aim to attract essays that introduce original, fresh, and creative ideas that can ignite or accelerate change in current innovation theory and/or practice. Catalyst essays can be subjective in nature, with authors expressing their opinions. There is no need for extensive literature reviews or methodological details, provided opinions and arguments are logically sound and grounded in solid industry experience and/or past scholarship. In some cases, we may invite rebuttals or reflections on the essays.

The editorial process to support the quick diffusion of original thinking through Catalyst essays remains the same. The authors are invited to send a short proposal for a Catalyst article to our dedicated email address: [email protected]. The decision to develop the proposal into a full paper (or not) will be taken by us as Co-EiCs. If a proposal is developed into a full paper and submitted, one or two of the Co-EiCs will continue to guide the process next to an Associate Editor and/or Editorial Board Member with subject knowledge. The process may include a few iterations to shape the final article and may still lead to a rejection if a paper fails to meet the expectations outlined above within a reasonable time. The aim is to make this process as efficient as possible to support the quick dissemination of original thinking.

Similar to the editorial process, we also keep the shorter format for Catalyst papers (about half the length of a regular JPIM article), requiring authors to write succinctly and to the point. A shorter format should facilitate diffusion among both innovation management academics and practitioners. More detailed instructions on submitting Catalyst proposals are posted on JPIM's website.

The second initiative discussed in this editorial is the newly introduced Review article category.

Review is a section within JPIM featuring review articles that provide a synthesis and critical appraisal of a particular research stream within innovation management. This category foregrounds research agenda setting and identifies future research priorities. While, over the years, JPIM has published several articles which set research agendas and priorities such as in special issue editorials and in alternative formats such as Catalyst essays, literature reviews and meta-analyses have only become more frequent in JPIM in recent years (Spanjol et al. 2024, Table 1). The need for consolidation of innovation management topics through (different types of) literature reviews, both from the JPIM audience and the JPIM Editors, is also acknowledged by a recent Special Issue focused on literature reviews and meta-analyses (2025, Vol 42, Issue 1). In the editorial to this special issue, the guest editors observe that a clear grasp of past research is creating, to cite “[the] foundation that is essential if we are to look forward to new insights” (Noble et al. 2025, 9).

Review papers are valued by the JPIM audience, as evidenced by, for example, their citations. Indeed, of the six winners of JPIM's Abbie Griffin High Impact Award (given to manuscripts considered to have made the most significant contribution to the theory and practice of innovation management as assessed 5 years after their publication date), one is a systematic review on stakeholder engagement in environmental innovation (Watson et al. 2018), one is a systematic review paper on design thinking (Micheli et al. 2019), and one is a conceptual paper that combines prior literature and case studies on industry platforms (Gawer and Cusumano 2014).

We are open to a variety of review types or forms, such as, for example, systematic, integrative, or problematizing reviews, in addition to bibliometrics and meta-analyses. Recent references of how to write these different types of review articles include, for example, Elsbach and van Knippenberg (2020) and Cronin and George (2023) on integrative reviews; DeSimone et al. (2021) for meta-analyses, Hulland (2024) and Donthu et al. (2021) for bibliometric analyses, Williams et al. (2021) and Simsek et al. (2023) for systematic reviews, and Alvesson and Sandberg (2020) for the lesser-known problematizing reviews.

Regardless of the type of review, articles submitted to the Review category should offer new research directions and make a substantive difference in how scholars might make sense of existing research findings and knowledge regarding a specific phenomenon or theme in innovation management. We do not seek manuscripts without this conceptual contribution, or that are merely descriptive in nature. Hence, Review articles must go beyond a descriptive or numeric synthesis of research on a given topic, should embody a critical and analytical approach in relation to a relevant area of inquiry, and should result in future agenda setting. In the words of Krlev et al. (2025, 377), “a high-quality review is one that builds on the current state of a field and charts a new direction.” While Review articles should focus on innovation management, they may be rooted in different paradigms and disciplinary perspectives, including (but not limited to) entrepreneurship, marketing, organizational behavior, strategy, or technology. Reviews on innovation management that cut across disciplinary boundaries are particularly encouraged.

Differently from the Catalyst category, Review articles will have the same page limit as regular JPIM papers. However, like the Catalyst category, to enhance the timely diffusion of important conceptual thinking, we offer an alternative route to submission compared to regular papers. Specifically, we invite authors to submit a proposal for a Review article (to [email protected]) which, like the Catalyst category, will be evaluated by the Co-EiCs. If a proposal is accepted, the authors will be asked to further develop their manuscript, guided by at least one Co-EiC and one dedicated Associate Editor or Editorial Review Board member with subject knowledge.

Regardless of the new Review category and procedure, authors can still submit review manuscripts via the normal submission route for regular manuscripts. However, for those authors who seek a more direct and timely route to submit their review papers, we would recommend sending it to the dedicated Review category.

We look forward to receiving proposals for Catalyst and Review articles in the months ahead. While the resulting Catalyst and Review papers will likely (continue to) be only a modest portion of our journal pages, we believe these publishing options will play an important role in moving the field of innovation management and theory forward by stimulating new perspectives and new research directions.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.