As inductive research has moved from the fringe to the mainstream, it not only has come to look more like deductive research, but has started to look more formulaic as well (i.e. standards, templates, checklists). The very thing that makes inductive research unique is its ability to challenge what is known and to do so creatively. The question, thus, needs to be asked: why does inductive research continue to become more formulaic when many inductive editors, reviewers, and authors celebrate novelty and creativity? We believe it is because reviewers and editors find it difficult to judge “quality” when there is no guidebook. The quality of science-based research is easier to judge than creative inductive research, which is often assumed to be in the “eye of the beholder.” From our SO!apbox, we tackle this challenge head-on by asking: what is “quality inductive research” when we loosen the science-based methodological straightjacket so as to deliver the novelty and creativity promised by inductive methods? In this editorial, we explore how editors can judge quality inductive research and offer innovative editorial practices that can help to foster creative inductive research.

随着归纳研究已从边缘发展到主流，它不仅看起来更像演绎研究，而且也开始看起来更加公式化（即标准，模板，清单）。使归纳研究与众不同的原因在于它具有挑战已知事物并进行创造性研究的能力。因此，需要提出一个问题：当许多归纳编辑，评论员和作者赞美新颖性和创造力时，归纳研究为什么继续变得更加公式化？我们认为这是因为在没有指南的情况下，审阅者和编辑者很难判断“质量”。以科学为基础的研究的质量比创造性的归纳研究更容易判断，后者通常被认为是“情人眼中的事物”。通过SO！apbox，我们可以通过以下方式直接应对这一挑战：当我们放松以科学为基础的方法论外套，以提供归纳方法所承诺的新颖性和创造力时，什么是“质量归纳研究”？在这篇社论中，我们探索编辑人员如何判断高质量的归纳研究，并提供创新的编辑实践，以帮助促进创造性的归纳研究。