Proposals are reviewed by two associate editors and one editor-in-chief. The peer review process at the proposal stage is a blind-reviewed process, and the reviewers (who are Academy of Management Annals associate editors) do not see the CVs of authors that are submitted with the proposal. Proposal decisions go out approximately 45 days after the deadline for submissions.
Criteria used to review proposals:
What issue or problem domain will your review cover? Why is this an important issue or area of research? Is there a sufficient body of high‐quality empirical research to warrant a review?
Related reviews: What prior reviews have been published on this topic? How will your review add value above and beyond what has already been done?
Review scope and process: How will you set the scope of your review and conduct a comprehensive literature search? What will be your inclusion/exclusion criteria? What process will you use to analyze the literature to identify integrating themes and novel insights?
New insights: What new insights are expected to emerge from your analysis of the literature? How will these new insights alter the trajectory of research in this problem domain? What implications and new directions will your manuscript offer for future research?
AMD is interested in “discoveries,” surprising findings likely to stimulate further exploration and impact future theorizing in management and organizations. These discoveries should not be easily explained by existing theories or frameworks. Please comment on whether such discoveries are a part of this manuscript.
AMD is interested in empirical exploration, not hypothesis testing. Research should be at the stage of knowledge development where it is premature to derive hypotheses. Research questions, as well as methodology and analyses, should be driven by the novelty and interestingness of the phenomenon and context. Please comment on whether the manuscript meets these objectives.
AMD is interested in research that is grounded in strong and persuasive evidence and that employs state-of-the art methods appropriate for the research questions asked. Please comment on whether this manuscript accomplishes these methodological and analytical goals.
What else did you like or find particularly compelling about the manuscript?
Other than what has been mentioned, what else did you dislike or find particularly problematic about the manuscript?
Please provide any other comments here.
Revised and accepted papers should always reflect the author's voice, as opposed to that of the reviewer or action editor. To accomplish this, we ask you to assess a paper in terms of the author's purposes, and to suggest specific ways to improve and achieve them. We encourage developmental reviewing, but be careful not to impose your agenda or to over-step your role by asking authors to adopt your preferred perspective. Wherever possible, final publication decisions will be made after no more than one revision.
Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) reviews should:
Be 2-4 pages in length
Be focused on 6-8 major points
Have those points numbered in a rough order of importance
Have minor points, if covered, placed into a separate section, continuing the numbering from the major points portion.
Sample Reviews Written by the Editors
To illustrate the kinds of reviews our editorial team is looking for, the micro and macro editors have written reviews of hypothetical AMJ submissions (the papers are "file-drawered" manuscripts obtained with consent by the editorial team). Although different
editors use different styles when writing their reviews, all of the reviews conform to the guidelines described above.
Theoretical Contribution: Does the manuscript test, create, or extend theory? Does it change or advance knowledge of the concepts, relationships, models, or theories embedded in the relevant literatures? Does it cause scholars to think about some
phenomenon in a way that would not be anticipated from extrapolations of existing work?
Interestingness, Innovativeness, and Novelty: Does the manuscript examine new constructs, phenomena, or relationships, or does it test its predictions in an unconventional, elegant, and unexpected way?
Empirical Contribution: Do the manuscript's findings add to the existing pool of knowledge in the relevant domains in an important and useful way?
Methodological Rigor: Was the study well executed? If the study is hypothetical-deductive, do its manipulations or measures possess construct validity, and do its findings possess adequate internal and statistical conclusion validity? If the study
is inductive, are its data gathered, coded, and interpreted according to prevailing standards?
Please contact AMJ's Managing Editor, Michael Malgrande, with any questions.
The Academy of Management Learning and Education (AMLE) editor will screen all manuscripts submitted to the Research & Reviews, and Essays, Dialogues, and Interviews sections. In some cases, a manuscript may be returned without peer review if it is judged to be inappropriate for publication in AMLE. Manuscripts that are egregiously deficient in grammar, spelling, and punctuation also may be returned without review. Manuscripts judged to be consistent with the mission and standards of AMLE will be submitted for double-blind review to at least two referees as dictated by content-one referee is always an Editorial Board member. Senior authors can expect to receive first-round feedback via email in approximately 75 days, moderated by the editor or an associate editor.
Manuscripts will be evaluated by referees on the following criteria (criteria will be selectively applied, based on the nature and type of the manuscript):
Originality and importance of core ideas
Quality of treatment of the relevant existing literature
Quality of the presentation of ideas
Design and execution of research methodology (if appropriate)
Overall contribution of the article to the advancement of management education
Authors are encouraged to solicit feedback from colleagues on early drafts. A manuscript can be improved dramatically when knowledgeable reviewers are asked for reactions in advance of submission. Manuscripts are considered with the understanding that their contents have not been published and are not under consideration elsewhere. Presentation of a paper at a professional meeting does not disqualify it from consideration.
AMLE publishes a wide range of materials devoted to management education in colleges, universities, and all organizations that formally foster learning about management, which encompass the four content areas:
Research and Reviews
This section contains articles which include: quantitative and qualitative empirical manuscripts, theoretical discourses and models, literature reviews, and general or specific appraisals of approaches to learning and management education. Authors of submissions for this section are encouraged to consider relevant theoretical perspectives when developing their manuscripts, but it is not necessarily required that the manuscript make a theoretical contribution to be accepted for publication. We strongly encourage authors to report effect sizes in empirically oriented submissions. There are two major classes of effect sizes for parametric analyses. The first class of effect sizes involves standardized mean differences. Effect sizes in this class include indices, such as Glass' Δ , Hedges' g, and Cohen's d. Because all parametric analyses are part of one General Linear Model family, and are correlational, variance-accounted-for effect sizes can be computed in all studies, including both experimental and non-experimental studies. Effect sizes in this second class include indices, such as r2, R2, and ŋ2. Although there is no formal page limit, manuscripts submitted for this section are typically between 20 and 40 pages. As always, length should reflect the value of the contribution.
Essays, Dialogues, and Interviews
Essays are original commentaries or critiques. Narrative accounts of the author's experiences with specific instructional technologies, techniques, courses, or program creation are not essays. Dialogues are responses to papers previously published in AMLE. Interviews are discussions with academics, educators, and business or thought leaders that would be of interest to our readership. Dialogues are rooted in Exemplary Contributions, Research & Reviews, or Essays published in AMLE, and should broadly advance the state of scholarship in the area of the target paper, as opposed to being primarily critiques of the reasoning or methodology of the target paper.
Exemplary Contributions are invited from noteworthy scholars and practitioners. They are peer-reviewed just as contributions to the other sections.
Book and Resource Reviews
AMLE publishes reviews of resources intended to foster learning (books, videos, simulations, exercises, etc.). These reviews are not peer-reviewed, although the editor for this section often encourages rewrites to improve initial submissions.
Please contact the AMLE Managing Editor, Stacey Victor, with any questions.
To submit your reviews, please go to mc.manuscriptcentral.com/amle and login to your account. Manuscripts assigned to you for review are listed in the "Awaiting Reviewer Scores" list below. You can view the manuscript by clicking on its title. To view reviewer instructions and access the score sheet, click on the "View Details" button.
Manuscript Evaluation Form With Comments for the Editor
Use this section sparingly. Please communicate the same information to authors as you do the Editor. Occasionally, however, additional comments are appropriate, e.g.:
A clarification of your recommendation, e.g., "If it were up to me, I'd publish this if the author successfully deals with the concerns raised in point 3 of my Comments to Authors”.
Contextual information, e.g., "Please interpret my comments in light of the fact that I have a strong bias against this general approach to the topic..."
Issues about which you are uncertain, e.g., "I think that there's a relatively large literature on this topic in sociology that the author is ignoring, but..."
High-quality manuscript reviews for Academy of Management Perspectives (AMP) meet the following criteria: 1) are timely and adhere to reviewer guidelines; 2) give constructive, concise recommendations to both the editors and authors; 3) offer substantiated comments about the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments, presentation, and discussions; 4) comment on the importance, relevance and likely newsworthiness of the manuscript for readers; and 5) note any special issues. Explanations of these features are included below.
Reviews that note subtle but important aspects that might otherwise be missed (e.g., prior/redundant publication, ethical issues), or that bring unusual depth, insight, and expertise are particularly appreciated.
Academy of Management Review (AMR) publishes new theoretical insights that advance our understanding of management and organizations. AMR is receptive to a variety of perspectives, including those seeking to improve the effectiveness of,
as well as those critical of, management and organizations. Submissions to AMR must extend theory in ways that permit the development of testable knowledge-based claims. To do this, researchers can develop new management and organization theory, significantly
challenge or clarify existing theory, synthesize recent advances and ideas into fresh, if not entirely new theory, or initiate a search for new theory by identifying and delineating a novel theoretical problem. The contributions of AMR articles often
are grounded in "normal science disciplines" of economics, psychology, sociology, or social psychology, as well as nontraditional perspectives, such as the humanities. AMR publishes novel, insightful and carefully crafted conceptual work that challenges
conventional wisdom concerning all aspects of organizations and their roles in society.
Writing Developmental Reviews: Video Interviews with Award Winning Reviewers
Be Constructive: Don't just point out problems, also point out solutions. Reviewers should be like "lifeguards"- trying to save the current manuscript, or at least the next project in the stream of research.
Be Concise: Try not to cover the same ground in multiple comments; consolidate your coverage of a given theme in a single point.
Be Polite and Conversational: Be "author friendly" in your tone, and use terms like "you" instead of "the authors."
Identify Some Strengths: Open your review with what you liked, before focusing the bulk of your review on your criticisms and concerns.
Don't Be "Two-Faced": Don't send a different message in your comments to the Author than you do in your Comments to the Editor, or different from the Reviewer Evaluation Form. Doing so puts the action editor in the awkward position of rejecting a
paper that—seemingly—has positive reviews.
Non-English Native Authors: You will sometimes be asked to review submissions from authors whose native language is not English. In those cases, distinguish between the quality of the writing and the quality of the ideas that the writing conveys.
Those ideas may be good, even if they are not expressed well.
Be On Time: AOM prides itself on cycle time. It is important to return your review on time so that the action editor can guarantee the authors a quick turnaround. The average time taken to return reviews is a key factor in making decisions about the
editorial review board (as is the percentage of review requests that are accepted rather than declined).
Comments to Authors
Maintain a polite, professional, and constructive tone.
Try to make your revisions developmental. The goal is to develop authors as well as evaluate their work. Losing someone who might subsequently contribute greatly to management learning and education research, but was dissuaded by a caustic or overly critical review process as they are beginning to learn to conduct research in this area is not ideal.
Be open to considering various types of potential contributions for Research and Reviews manuscripts. Papers can make theoretical, empirical, and/or practical contributions. Regardless of the nature of the contribution, papers should make connections with prior published research. If the work is empirical, then full information regarding statistical tests and effect sizes should be reported. For more detail on effect sizes, please review the revised guide for submitters.
Essays are different from research and review articles and therefore should be reviewed differently. Essays are to be strongly argued, provocative critical commentaries or critiques relevant to management education and learning. As such, theoretical contributions are unnecessary for essays, but arguments should be sound, logically coherent, and well-supported.
Be consistent. One of the worst things a reviewer can do is pile praise upon the authors and then recommend that the action editor reject the manuscript. Such reviews place the action editor in the very awkward position of having to reject articles despite seemingly positive reviews that are not, in reality, positive. Please ensure that your comments to the authors are consistent with any comments that you provide for the editor.
Do not give an editorial opinion about publication in your comments to the authors (e.g., "this is a fine paper that should definitely be published"). Reviewers often disagree about the bottom-line decision. The Editor must weigh all considerations voiced and then write an editorial decision.
Separate and number your comments, rather than writing them in straight narrative style. In communicating with authors, the editor can say things like "pay particular attention to points 2 and 5 raised by Reviewer #9999”.
Cite page numbers and line numbers when referring to specific sections of the manuscript.
There is no clearly preferred strategy for organizing comments to the authors. Some reviewers organize their comments in terms of the rating dimensions. Others address points sequentially, as they appear in the paper. Still others organize their comments by importance: most critical concerns first, followed by relatively minor points. Use the best suited approach.
Tips for Developmental Reviewing
Instead of focusing only on shortcomings, the developmental reviewer takes the role of an informed reader who encourages authors and helps them take their work to the next level. The reviewer moves from the role of critical gatekeeper to colleague.
Imagine having a face-to-face conversation with the author. Picture the author as a colleague who asked you to review her paper. You would point out the paper's shortcomings but would also take the next step in providing ideas for how she could address them as she moves forward with her work.
You would try to find the hidden gems in her work, even if they are buried in the manuscript. You would listen to her and try to understand her perspective, even if you hold different views or approaches.
Instead of giving advice, you may pose questions that help her develop her ideas and recognize potential boundary conditions or assumptions in her work.
Please use the PDF copy of the manuscript to complete your review.
To access it, click on your "Reviewer Center" link and then click on the "View Details" button.
Click on the PDF icon to download a copy of the manuscript.
Under Comments to the Author, paste or write your review into the Comments for Authors text box.