picture of Torben Pedersen
Torben Pedersen
Bocconi University
picture of Stephen B Tallman
Stephen B Tallman
University of Richmond


We have previously introduced 'Reseach Platforms' as a complement to more traditional articles. We see research platform content as important to fueling relevant conversations in the field of global strategy, as not all contributions and extensions of our knowledge can be captured in the traditional article format. Therefore, we see it as our duty as editors to create space for research platform content that lives up to our high quality norms and opens doors to new or underdeveloped areas of study..not at the expense of traditional articles, but as a supplement! We see this effort as treating our customers seriously by proactively instigating conversations among scholars on the many open issues in the field. Previous issues of Global Strategy Journal include many examples of such research platform content. This issue of GSJ features another example of research platform content with the perspective paper by Coeurderoy and Verbeke and the commentary by Meyer and Benito. It also serves as an illustration of how we try to promote these conversations.

This issue of Global Strategy Journal marks the end of the fifth year of publication for the journal. The first five years have entailed a number of innovations and significant contributions to the conversations on international strategy issues. We are committed to continue along this path in the years to come. The best indication that we are on the right track came with the listing in the SSCI this year. Global Strategy Journal (GSJ) was ranked No. 16 of 185 in Management (impact factor (IF) of 3.694). This is supported by a five-year IF of 4.396 (No. 21) and an Article Influence Score of 1.647 (No. 27). These measures provide a strong indication that published GSJ articles are impacting scholarly research. This is particularly encouraging, as the ultimate goal of any journal is to influence the research conversations in its field. On all measures, GSJ ranks well ahead of many more established and well-respected journals. Although these rankings are notoriously volatile, this debut success suggests that GSJ is already the place for scholarly work on international strategy issues. As such, the past five years provide an excellent basis for outlining what international strategy research really is, i.e., identifying the boundaries of international strategy research and, therefore, the domain of GSJ.

With this issue, Global Strategy Journal introduces a new format for articles that will be offered across the Strategic Management Society family of journals. The society’s publications committee has chosen to call these invited articles ‘research platforms.’ Research platform content in the SMS journals provides a base for identifying and opening up new areas of research that involve multiple potential research questions. The goal of research platform content is to help scholars identify opportunities to advance the discipline of scholarship in strategic management and in global strategic management in the specific case of GSJ. The research platform concept is explained in more detail in the next section, but as applied in this issue, it supports the Point-Counterpoint discussion between two outstanding scholars of global strategy and international business that follows this comment. In this case, the topic is multinationalization and performance, one of the mainstays of studies of multinational enterprises and the topic and includes an independently submitted and blindreviewed article on the topic in this issue. However, a complete list of articles on the topic across all strategy and international business journals would undoubtedly run into the hundreds. We offer our editorial thoughts on M-P research at the end of this comment.