WPOM Case report papers guidelines: Recommendations for the reporting of case studies or action research in Business Management

A Spanish version of the article is provided (see section before references). Objective: To provide a working guide which facilitates the accuracy, transparency, and usefulness for academics and practitioners of case report papers as an article type which are fit for publishing in impact journals. In this way, we aim to increase the use and dissemination of recommendations in aid of the writing and publication of case study and action research. Theoretical framework: A case report paper presents a story in narrative form and includes current individual or organisational concerns, situational diagnoses, interventions, outcomes including adverse events, and follow-up. The narrative should include a discussion of the rationale for any conclusions and lessons learned. Method: We analysed the prevalence of these type of articles in publications as indexed in Web of Science (WOS) and in Scopus; we explain how we customised the case report guidelines (CAse REport or CARE) to optimise them for the scientific field of Management focussing particularly on Operations Management and Human Resources Management. We shared for discussion and feedback the adapted proposal among a group of academics and professionals in the field of Management. Outcomes/Implications: Robust research performance, reduce bias risk, provide information on the implementation of management practices, support the training of management professionals, and enable informed editorial decisions by journal editors and reviewers.


Introduction
A case report paper is a variant of a research report, such as a scientific paper or article, which describes for business management, scientific, or educational purposes a problem or situation experienced by one or more analytical units (e.g., at individual, departmental, or organisational level). A case report paper relates a story in a narrative format which includes the problems or situations encountered by an individual or an organisation, the diagnoses of the challenges, the interventions made, the results obtained including adverse effects, and any follow-up actions realised. (Gagnier et al., 2013).
In the field of Business Management, case report papers can be used as research reports based on fieldwork methods linked to ethnography (Bryman & Bell, 2011). This is especially so in single case studies and, above all, in action research. In these researches an iterative process is normally employed where an in-depth and objective analysis of a situation is presented, and where the researcher or the participating organisation has little control over the events (Kratochwill & Levin, 2010;McCutcheon & Meredith, 1993). In this sense single case studies and action research share aspects of observational studies (Kratochwill & Levin, 2010;Losilla et al., 2018). The objectivity of the report is realised by complementing observations and/or interviews with documents, reports, organisational diagrams, statistical analyses of organisational data, etc. (Bonache, 1999;McCutcheon & Meredith, 1993;Voss et al., 2002). All this must be performed while maintaining methodological rigour to mitigate against a lack of transparency, and to assure validity and reliability in the measurements processed (Marin-Garcia, 2015;Marin-Garcia, 2021;Tight, 2017;Voss et al., 2002).
Case report papers allow for reporting in detail on the study of a single plant, department, person, or situation over time and analysing the effect of a course of intervention. In this way, other practitioners can use this knowledge gained to make decisions in comparable situations (Tight, 2017). In the majority of this type of research the sample consists of a single analysis unit (e.g., an individual, a department, or an organisation) (Pacewicz, 2022;Small, 2009). However, if the case report papers are rigorously reported and appropriately labelled thus facilitating systematic retrieval and combination, they can in the future be analysed together with other similar research and provide an opportunity to discover beneficial or detrimental effects of the tools or programmes considered by the organisations.
Research based on multiple case reports and integrated through a systematic literature review can serve to (France et al., 2019;Gagnier et al., 2013;Heart Views, 2017;Tight, 2017): (a) identify management actions (e.g., tools, programmes, or initiatives) which can help or harm an organisation, or units within the organisation, and the conditions under which one or the other occurs; (b) assess the achieved benefits, the problems which are alleviated or solved, the resources, investments, or costs required, any undesired effects which may appear, and how these factors evolve over time; c) identify factors external to the intervention that affect or are impacted by the process (e.g., the culture of the organisation, personalities of the people involved, internal and external relationships, economic situation, etc.); and d) assess how the participants perceive the process. In addition, multiple case reports can play an important role in recognising new practices and/or underutilised practices.
Randomised controlled trials can be complicated to design and conduct in fields such as Management (e.g., Operations Management, Human Resources Management, or other sub-fields of Management) because the context in which the intervention takes place can be extremely complex (Booth et al., 2013;France et al., 2019;Guise et al., 2017;Lewin et al., 2015). In this respect, research with a case study, action research, or grounded theory approach provides a way to study this complexity, and case report papers offer a way to report details that allow describing and standardising future experiments. In addition, they promote dissemination of good practices and provide information for their application in other contexts (Shani & Coghlan, 2021;Tight, 2017). In this respect, this work broadens the context in which other guidelines can be applied, such as that of Marin-Garcia and Alfalla-Luque (2021) which focused exclusively on the teaching and learning environments. This paper adapts the case reports guidelines (CAse REport or CARE) (Gagnier et al., 2013;Riley et al., 2017), which have been developed in the field of Health Sciences, in order to apply them in the scientific field of Management, especially in Operations Management and Human Resources Management. We build on the work of the Health Sciences expert group and discuss the adapted proposal with a group of academics and practitioners from the discipline of Management.
The aim of this paper is to provide a working guide which facilitates the accuracy, the transparency, and, above all, the usefulness for academics and practitioners of case report papers as an article type publishable in impact journals. We analyse the prevalence of this type of article in publications as indexed in Web Of Science (WOS) and in Scopus. Finally, we explain how we adapted the CARE guidelines and we make public the list of criteria that WPOM uses during the review process to facilitate the editorial decision to accept papers for publication. We contend, in line with previous research (Gagnier et al., 2013;Hirst & Altman, 2012;Riley et al., 2017), that rigorous reporting guidelines help to improve the conducted research, to reduce the risk of bias, to provide information on the implementation of management practices, to promote the training of management professionals, and to enable informed editorial decisions by journal editors and reviewers.

Case report papers in the service of evidence-based management
Business management is a complex task which requires tackling difficult problems and/or situations. In some cases, managers are tempted to introduce changes or new business practices as inspired by a book read during downtime on a business trip, by information seen on the blog of a self-described business guru, by trying to emulate a dazzling company appearing in the media, or simply by trying to imitate companies similar to theirs. Arguably this provides fertile ground for the incursion of pseudoscience into the world of management (Callaghan, 2019;Dobusch & Heimstaedt, 2019;Grawitch & Ballard, 2019;Juandi & Tamur, 2021;Stroke, 1994;Sulkowski, 2019;Thaler & Shiffman, 2015).
Vendors can easily promise something highly desirable, but which is in reality virtually impossible to deliver (de Regt et al., 2020). For example, a proposal to reduce inventories to zero by using artificial intelligence to manage the alignment of delivery times with production schedules and the receipt of raw materials and components sounds promising. Such a proposal may also be sold as easy and with a guaranteed successful implementation. More often than not the reality is a complex problem usually does not have a simple or easy-to-implement solution (Manchón, 2021).
At other times, organisations may implement a method or a practice which is little more than a placebo and supported by seemingly promising results with little more weight than those easily explained by the Hawthorne effect (Adair, 1984;Hubbard et al., 1998;Juandi & Tamur, 2021;Leonard & Masatu, 2010;Levitt & List, 2011). Perhaps this accounts for why success stories usually abound, although it is difficult to find cases described as failures. There is a further clouding when an implementation does not work as expected, there arises a perverse incentive to mask the results or objectives after the fact, and to try to present it in a way that makes it appear as if the implementation has at least partly achieved its objectives.
In some cases, one might conclude the function of new a management practice introduction is not so much to achieve a real improvement in company indicators, but rather to ease the consciences of managers and to avoid making difficult decisions themselves, or simply to have a ready scapegoat in case decisions lead to a poor result. It is also possible external ideas are used as leverage to mobilise change, because what comes from outside can seem to be more valued in some contexts. Perhaps in these cases, fast thinking circuits win out over slow thinking ones, taking advantage of the appeal of using shortcuts which simplify problems for us, even if they are not the ones leading to the optimal solutions (Kahneman, 2011;kahneman et al., 2016).
In this situation, illustrative examples of specific cases, detailing precise and transparent information on the process of implementing management practices and/or programmes, can help different groups such as: • Business leaders: Reviewing and comparing options for practices they consider for implementation. • Researchers or implementors of management practices: Sharing and comparing their experiences with those of their colleagues and peers. • Management practice trainers: Having real cases that allow for evidence-based management teaching approaches or case-based teaching. In some contexts, capstone projects can be developed following the guidelines of case report papers.
Case report papers can play a role in bringing research results closer to people with managerial responsibilities in organisations. We have little information on what people in organisations holding management responsibility read (Armstrong & Pagell, 2003;Bigelow & Arndt, 2003;Bootsma et al., 1997;Perea & Brady, 2017). However, if we take the world of healthcare as a paradigm of evidencebased professional practice, in that context it is assumed, on average, healthcare workers spend between 3 and 4 hours per week reading scientific articles on Health Sciences (Nylenna, 1991;Saint et al., 2000;Tenopir et al., 2007). Obviously, these figures may depend on contexts (e.g., countries, medical field, etc.) and/or may have evolved in recent times. In general, healthcare workers appear to prefer reading articles based on results with real patients or systematic reviews and less so those based on basic research or results from laboratory experiments or simulations (González de Dios et al., 2011;O'Connor, 2009;Ru et al., 2017;Thoms, 2014). However, some work indicates less than a quarter of physicians read scientific articles to make evidence-based decisions (Baig et al., 2016). This likely occurs because, among other reasons, there are barriers to this path identified in medicine (Grimshaw et al., 2002). The challenge is to identify how and where managers in organisations are informed and what should be done to enhance the role case report papers can play as a source for evidence-based management.
Finally, it should be noted case report papers are neither a method of data collection (as opposed to, for example, participant observation, content analysis, surveys or interviews), nor a research methodology (as opposed to case studies, action research, or grounded theory) (Bonache, 1999). Case report papers are a way of scientifically reporting the results of research. The format is particularly well suited to research focused on ethnographically related methodology, especially action research.
In the field of Management there are various published guidelines related to case studies and to action research (Bleijenbergh et al., 2021;Bonache, 1999;De Massis & Kotlar, 2014;Elg et al., 2020;Elsahn et al., 2020;Erro-Garcés & Alfaro-Tanco, 2020;Ketokivi & Choi, 2014;Marin-Garcia & Alfalla-Luque, 2021;Oliva, 2019;Raelin, 2020;Shani & Coghlan, 2021;Swanepoel, 2019;Voss et al., 2002). All of them, except (Marin-Garcia & Alfalla-Luque, 2021), focus on the epistemological aspects including foundations and methodology of how to conduct research. In addition, most of these publications focus on recommendations for empirical work focused on building theories or models. However, they offer little on how to report on the research conducted and largely (Voss et al., 2002) focus on research which aims to analyse examples or counterexamples of how theories or models work, or which can help to confirm those models in different contexts or to uncover gaps in models or theories.
However, we have not located any reporting guidelines specific to case report papers in the field of Management. We propose the CARE guidelines (Gagnier et al., 2013;Riley et al., 2017) specific to Health Sciences can be adapted for the field of Management.

Case report papers in the field of Business or Management Research
As discussed above, case report papers provide evidence of the effectiveness of management practices or programme implementation in real organisations, while articles showing the results of experiments provide evidence in controlled contexts with situations manipulated by the researchers. Therefore, both contributions complement each other and have value. In this sense, case studies or action research, informed by case report papers, allow for the analysis of novel and/or rare implementations.
Case report papers are rarely implemented in Business and Management research, or rarely labelled as such, which makes it difficult to discover and reuse them. Search strategies without a specific keyword led to many false positives and many false negatives as described below.
A search in Scopus in mid-July 2021 using the term "case report" in the title, abstract, and keyword fields yielded more than two and a half million articles. (Figure 1). Filtering on the subject fields of Business, Management, and Accounting reduced the results to 439 (Figure 2). Most of these results were on experiences in Health Sciences or Health Management. Additionally, most of the publications occurred after 2014 with approximately 40 articles of this type published each year. This low figure contrasted with the popularity of case reports in medicine with nearly 2.5 million results, and in nursing with more than 45,000 results ( Figure 3). It is possible many of these results do not fit the exact characteristics of a case report as discussed in this article. The occurrence of false positive bias was also likely to exist, and may have been amplified, in the low figure of 49 results in the Business, Management, and Accounting field. Repeating the search in WOS returned similar results. The Business and Economics field yielded 626 results with approximately 30 articles per year in recent years. In that number, there were many publications in health sciences, health economics, and health management. Filtering out the results published in journals which were only classified in the Business and Economics field, the figure reduced to 9 articles in all years of WOS coverage. In contrast, in any of the sub-fields of medicine covered by WOS, a search produced more than 30,000 results.
Taking advantage of the ability in WOS to use a specific "case report" tag for Document Type, we can see this document type yielded hundreds of thousands of results in each of the fields of Health Sciences. (Figure 4 and Figure 5). These results were published in various Health Sciences journals. (Figure 6).

Methods
We followed a four-phase process to reach consensus on the adapted guide. In Phase 1 we searched for guidelines or recommendations on how to write case report papers with extractable items. After the search we considered whether the CARE guidelines (Gagnier et al., 2013;Heart Views, 2017;Riley et al., 2017) constituted the best model currently available and they enjoyed the greatest consensus and reuse within the scientific community (Appendix A).
In Phase 2, we adapted the components of the CARE guidelines to make them more meaningful in the context of management research (Appendix B).
In Phase 3, we consulted experts to refine the adapted guidelines and to help develop the proposed case report paper guidelines. In this phase, we contacted people who met at least one of the following two criteria: a) researchers in the field of Operations Management or Human Resources Management who have published articles or professional reports related to case studies or action research; b) professionals from organisations who have been involved in action research published in scientific journals or conferences.
The 29 candidates identified were contacted by an email in which the purpose of the research (to generate specific recommendations for case reporting) was explained to them, they were given instructions for participation, and they were asked to participate. 11 candidates accepted our invitation to collaborate and then received a document with the definition of a case report paper and the checklist adapted to the field of Management. Considering these they were asked the following: 1) Is there too much or too little relevant information to include in a case report paper?
2) The justification for their views regarding point 1.
3) Optionally, their opinion on the initiative to encourage the use of case reports paper.
We grouped the recommendations, integrated them, and refined the recommendations by assessing the reasons given by the participants in Phase 3. The refined version was used in Phase 4, which consisted of checking the consensus on the refined version from Phase 3. For Phase 4 we returned to the participants of from Phase 3 and we took advantage of academic events during 2022 (e.g., "II Jornadas de Experiencias Docentes en Dirección de Operaciones", linked to the ADINGOR environment and "XIII Workshop de la Sección de Dirección de Operaciones y Tecnología de ACEDE (ACEDEDEDOT)" and ACEDE conference) to present the refined draft of the guidelines and to collect the opinions and proposals of a wide range of researchers in the fields of Operations Management and Human Resources Management. The final recommendations below incorporate the relevant comments received.

Results
As a result of the completion of the four phases detailed above, we present below the refined guideline proposal (Table 1). Table 1. Case report paper guidelines 1. Title: The problem, diagnosis, or intervention of primary focus followed by the words "case report". 2. Key Words: include "case report paper" and 2 to 10 key words that identify diagnoses, conditions, problems, or interventions in the case report, the methodology (case study, action research, etc.) and main uses for the case report (learning, practice, etc.).

Abstract:
o Summary: Briefly summarize the case (i.e., the main concerns and important facts) and why the case report adds value in terms of interest and contribution to research and/or practice. o Methodology: The primary diagnoses, interventions, and outcomes. o Conclusion: What are one or more takeaways presented in the case report? How can they improve our knowledge of the topic or practices in other organizations? 4. Introduction: Briefly summarize why the case report is interesting and relevant. 5. Theoretical background: The main issues to be addressed are the decision making within the organisation, the solutions proposed for situations considered, and the limitations of the available knowledge.

Information about individuals and/or the organization and their relevant concerns:
o Preserving confidentiality, include anonymized people (e.g., demographic details) and/or organization-specific information (economic activity, ownership, size, etc.). o Primary concerns and symptoms of problems (specific details for diagnosis will be treated in the diagnostic assessment section). o Main stakeholders including relevant organizational information. 7. Timeline: Historical and current information from the situation organized into a timeline (e.g., a figure or table). The main recommendations made were: the modification of some terms or the use of synonyms (in order to avoid false-friend words for non-native English speakers); improved labelling of section headings to better represent the contents; relocation of some blocks of information to other sections or the creation of new sections; greater emphasis on linking to published scientific literature. The original version (Annex A) or the first adapted version (Annex B) can be compared with the refined proposal (Table 1).
In general, we believe it is appropriate the case report paper format should be in narrative form which puts into context and presents the story of the process followed by the unit under analysis (person, group, department, or organisation). In addition, it should include the reasons and motives, both for the decisions made in the unit of analysis and for the academic or professional conclusions (takeaways) derived from the case report. This is relevant if it is a case study report, but even more so if it is an action research (in which case, blocks of additional information specific to one of the 8 steps of the action research methodology can be incorporated) (Alfaro- Tanco  We recommend the title is brief, concise, and descriptive. In this sense, the title should describe the programme or phenomenon that is the focus of the paper (problems, diagnosis, interventions and/or results) and include the words "case report". In order to facilitate the retrieval of these papers in the future, "case report paper" should also be included as a keyword.
Case report papers, from a professional point of view, can be considered as lessons-learned reports with an additional academic contribution. The introduction section should clearly explain why it is important to read the case report paper.
It is advisable, in line with (Gagnier et al., 2013), that a timeline (e.g., a Gantt chart) be attached, in the form of a table or figure, highlighting chronologically and in detail the main milestones related to the case presented.
The level of detail should be high in order to be informative, but this should be balanced with the length of the case report paper not being too excessive, so it remains relatively quick and easy to read. We recommend to focus the details on the most relevant aspects of the context and the intervention: a recent history of the organisation related to the main topic of the case report, the main characteristics of the organisation (size, sector, culture, management methodologies, organisational constraints, etc.), the diagnostic tools used and their rationale for selection, the results of the diagnosis, the main interventions and events in the follow-up after the intervention, etc. Additional information (e.g., details, intervention diary, tables, or figures) can be organised into annexes or as supplementary material to maintain a balance between detailed information (allowing step-by-step replication) and agile reading of the document.
We deem it essential to describe not only what interventions were deployed, but also how these interventions were executed (e.g., duration, frequency, resources invested and timing, people involved, roles, unforeseen events and how they were addressed, interruptions, discontinuities in the implementation process, adherence to protocols, how adherence was measured, etc.). The results, both expected and unexpected, should be well documented.
The introduction should justify the interest of the case for potential readers, the relevance of the issues/problems addressed, or the frequency (prevalence) of similar situations, or the impact for individuals or organisations of the addressed issues.
The theoretical framework should focus on the proposed solutions for situations such as those in the organisation, and their feasibility or expected results. Additionally, reference should be made to previous work related to the decisions taken in the organisation. The limitations of available knowledge or research should also be highlighted.
In the analysis of the case presented, it would be interesting to include how the need emerged, or the presence or seriousness of the problem was verified in the unit of analysis; what circumstances promoted or facilitated the situation; how the organisation experienced the situation; what aspects have influenced the decisions that were taken in the organisation, etc.
Whenever possible, monitoring data should be provided for a sufficient period of time to allow for the assessment of the results (or unintended effects) for the decisions implemented. The setting of such a period is not always obvious and information should be provided to justify the chosen time window.
An important aspect that can be difficult to resolve, or to balance with transparency, is anonymity or withholding the identification of the actual companies or participants in the study if they wish to remain anonymous. Confidentiality issues or avoiding the dissemination of strategic actions of organisations can also be a difficult issue to resolve in some cases.
It is particularly important to be careful about the terminology used. Organisations may use their own jargon or acronyms (not always in common or widespread use outside of the organisation), or they may use terms that are coined and well known, but with a different interpretation or meaning than they may have in other organisations or in academia. It is useful to include a glossary with a concise definition of terms used to identify programmes, practices, or interventions.
In the timeline section, interventions or actions of the past and activities related to intervention shown in the case report must be commented on.
The diagnostic assessment section includes aspects of methodology (how the information has been captured) and the interpretation (diagnosis and prognosis) made with said information.
In principle, a case report paper always includes an intervention, not just a diagnosis and an action plan. Without intervention, we would be closer to a protocol paper (Marin-Garcia, 2021). Describing the intervention and its results is an essential part of the case report. However, it is possible that the "intervention" you want to report on is how to diagnose and identify the problem. There are several alternatives to making a diagnosis. It can be subject to analysis if other options have failed in the past or if it has never been tried. For example, making a diagnosis with action research (with researchers involved in the process) can be analysed as an intervention instead of doing it only with staff from the organization or with people who are consultants but are not researchers. A case report paper always tells how to solve a problem and how it went. That problem can be how to make a diagnosis, an action plan, or the actions derived from the plan.
In the discussion section, you can describe the mechanisms that you think have worked to achieve the results shown in the case and whether, if there were implementation recommendations for the practices, any exceptions or adaptations to the recommendations were necessary.
There have also been recommendations on initiatives which could be implemented to encourage the dissemination of case report papers. On the one hand, it would be interesting to show an example case which is as close as possible to these recommendations (this case would also serve as an exercise to improve the recommendations as necessary). In addition, a training workshop on how to write a case report paper could be proposed and complemented with self-training resources. As an alternative to training, an event or talk could be held in specific forums (such as ADINGOR or ACEDEDOT) and disseminating its potential as a learning tool for professionals. Another option is to propose a special issue which serves as a launching event and helps to reach a consensus on criteria in a set of articles (which could then serve as an example, as proposed in the first suggestion). It would also be interesting to create case report protocols. In them, you would explain how you are going to collect data, what data you are going to collect, and include comparable information (Marin-Garcia, 2021) in collections of case report papers that share the same protocol and would facilitate integration and knowledge building.

Conclusions
Case report papers appear to have had a relevant role in Health Sciences research for some time now. This type of article represents a source of relevant information for identifying new ideas or situations where the observed reality behaves differently from the established models (with either more positive or more negative results than expected). But, above all, they are an important element for discovering and disseminating what programmes or practices work and under what circumstances.
The process from which we have generated our proposal has some limitations. The proposal presented represents the consensus achieved with a specific group of participants. Although we have tried to have diversity in the panel (people from academia and people from business; specialists in operations management and specialists in human resource management; senior and junior people; business administration profiles and engineering profiles), not all possible variants are represented, nor can we guarantee that their opinions are wholly representative of the groups to which they belong.
We are unable to guarantee, even if the recommendations of this paper are followed, research adhering to these guidelines will provide evidence of causality. The aim of these guidelines is to increase the quality of information reporting for research conducted using ethnographic methods, regardless of whether or not this can justify the cause-effect relationship between interventions and outcomes.
This work is considered an initial step allowing the discovery of aspects which can be extended in future research. It would be interesting to have detailed examples and counter-examples of the application of each of the points in the provided checklist. There is also uncertainty regarding the scientific reading habits of managers in organisations and whether the case report paper model shown here would serve to meet their needs and bridge the gap between research and professional practice. A possible future line of research may lay along these lines. Finally, it might be of interest to analyse the adherence to our guidelines of a sample of ethnographic (case study or action research) papers applied in the field of management. For example, we could analyse articles such as (Claudio et al., 2021;Hamlin, 2002;Nino et al., 2020) (Suárez-Barraza & Miguel-Davila, 2020).

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the ideas and suggestions received from different people in the process of production and revision of this work.

Full Disclosure
The
A case report tells a story in a narrative format that includes the presentation of concerns for an individual or an organization, situation diagnoses, interventions, outcomes (including adverse events) and followups. The narrative should include a discussion of the rationale for any conclusions and any takeaways. Table 2 Case report papers guidelines adapted from CARE (phase 2)

Appendix B
1. Title -The diagnosis or intervention of primary focus followed by the words "case report". 2. Key Words -2 to 10 key words that identify diagnoses or interventions in this case report (including "case report paper"
Este trabajo adaptará las case reports (CARE) guidelines (Gagnier et al., 2013;Riley et al., 2017), que se han desarrollado en el ámbito de Ciencias de la Salud, para que sean aplicables en el área científica de Management (especialmente en Operations Management y en Human Resources Management). Aprovecharemos los trabajos del grupo de expertos en Ciencias de la Salud y debatiremos la propuesta adaptada con un grupo de académicos y profesionales del área de Management.
Si aprovechamos que WOS tiene una etiqueta específica de "case report" para Document Type, se puede observar que se trata de un tipo de documento con cientos de miles de resultados en cada una de las áreas de Ciencias de la Salud (Figure 4 y Figure 5). Estos resultados son publicados en revistas de Ciencias de la Salud ( Figure 6).
En la segunda fase, el primer autor de este artículo ha adaptado los ítems de las CARE guidelines para que tuvieran sentido en el contexto de investigaciones sobre Management (anexo B).
En la tercera fase, se consultó con personas expertas para refinar las guidelines adaptadas y proponer unas case report papers guidelines. Para esta tercera fase hemos contactado con personas que cumplían, al menos, uno de estos criterios: a) investigadores/as del área de Operations Management o Human Resources Management que hayan publicado artículos o informes profesionales relacionados con estudios de casos o investigación en acción; b) profesionales de organizaciones que hayan intervenido en una action research publicada en revistas o congresos científicos.
En la parte introductoria se debería justificar el interés del caso para los potenciales lectores, la relevancia de los temas que se van a tratar o la frecuencia (prevalencia) de situaciones similares o el impacto para personas u organizaciones de los aspectos tratados.
El marco teórico se debería centrar en las soluciones que se han propuesto para situaciones como la planteada en la organización y su viabilidad o resultados esperados. Así como referencia a los trabajos previos relacionados con las decisiones que se tienen que tomar en la organización. Las limitaciones del conocimiento o investigaciones disponibles también deben ser puestas de manifiesto.
Un aspecto importante y no siempre fácil de resolver, o equilibrar con la transparencia, es el anonimato o evitar la identificación de las empresas o participantes reales en el estudio si ellas lo desean así. Los aspectos de confidencialidad o evitar la difusión de acciones estratégicas de las organizaciones también pueden ser un aspecto complicado de resolver en algunos casos.
En el apartado time line se debe comentar tanto las intervenciones o acciones del pasado, relacionadas con el asunto a tartar en el case report paper, como las acciones relacionadas con la intervención que se muestra en el case report.
En principio, un case report paper siempre incluye una intervención, no solo un diangóstico y un plan de accion. Sin intervención, estaríamos más cerca de un protocol paper (Marin-Garcia, 2021). Precisamente, describir la intervención y sus resultados es una parte esencial del case report. Sin embargo, es possible que la "intervención" sobre la que se quiere informar sea acerca de cómo hacer el diagnóstico e identificar el problema. Siempre hay varias alternativas para hacer el diagnóstico y se puede analizar si otras opciones han fracasado en el pasado, o si nunca se había intentado. Por ejemplo, se puede analizar como intervención el hacer un diagnóstico con una action research (con investigadores implicados en el proceso) en lugar de hacerlo solo con personal de la organización o con personas que son consultoras pero no son investigadoras. Un case report paper siempre cuenta una manera de resolver un problema y como les ha ido. Tanto si ese problema es cómo hacer un diagnóstico o un plan de acción o las acciones derivadas del plan.
En la parte de discusión se puede describir los mecanismos que se cree que han actuado para lograr los resultados mostrados en el caso y si, en caso de haber recomendaciones de implantación para las prácticas, ha sido necesario hacer alguna excepción o adaptación de las recomendaciones.