To attend the Annual Meeting conference, a program participant must be an AOM member and must be registered for the conference. Program participants are highly encouraged to personally present their submissions.
PDW Proposals can be submitted to one Division, Interest Group, or Affiliate. It is recommended that you contact the preferred sponsoring Division, Interest Group, or Affiliate to discuss your proposal prior to submitting it. During the submission process, you will have the opportunity to suggest other Divisions, Interest Groups, and Affiliates that may also be interested in the proposal.
"No one may submit to or be associated with more than three (3) Professional Development Workshop (PDW) submissions to the AOM Annual Meeting." PDW Program appearances include all roles that are listed on the PDW program such as chairs, organizers, special guests, speakers, presenters, co-authors, and so on.
The Rule of Three + Three (no more than three scholarly submissions + three workshop submissions) serves as a means to ensure broad participation of members. It reduces the likelihood of the program being dominated by a small handful of people and helps to ensure that no one is committed to appear at more than one place at a time. When people make too many commitments to participate in the conference program, scheduling conflicts often arise. As a consequence, participants find it difficult to honor their commitments, and the program and the experiences of the attendees will suffer as a result. The Rule of Three + Three helps reduce these problems. Participants are better able to fully honor their commitments, and attendees can attend events knowing that the featured speakers will actually be there throughout the event.
The AOM Submission Center will automatically block submissions that violate the rule of 3+3. The system will inform the submitter of the rule violation and indicate which participant has already been associated with three other submissions. The submitter will then have to revise the proposal by removing the individual who is in violation of the rule. The proposal can be revised and resubmitted by the deadline without penalty. A person who agrees to be listed on more than three PDW proposals or three scholarly submissions puts all of those submissions at risk of being dropped from the program. Therefore, it is in the interest of submitters to ensure that everyone understands and follows the rule. Clearly, the implications of including a violator of the Rule of Three + Three on a submission are far-reaching.
Note: It is the responsibility of each participant to understand and follow the Rule of Three + Three. If you have committed to participate in three workshops and three scholarly submissions, you should decline further requests.
The following are exempt from the Rule of Three + Three:
If a person appears in more than one role in a single session (e.g., chair and speaker), it counts as one for purposes of the Rule of Three + Three.
Members should notify the appropriate Division, Interest Groups, or Affiliate Chairs regarding the practices or actions of members they believe may violate AOM policies, rules, or general standards of ethical conduct. Standards of conduct that are particularly relevant to participation in the Annual Meeting are summarized below. More information about the AOM's professional norms on conference presentations can also be found on the Ethics Video Series on AOM’s YouTube channel.
Authorship and credit should be shared in correct proportion to the various parties' contributions. Whether published or not, ideas or concepts derived from others should be acknowledged, as should advice and assistance received. Authors should also guard against plagiarizing the work of others. Plagiarism is defined as:
The failure to give sufficient attribution to the words, ideas, or data of others that have been incorporated into a work, which an author submits for academic credit or other benefits. Attribution is sufficient if it adequately informs and, therefore, does not materially mislead a reasonable reader as to the source of the words, ideas, or data. Attribution (or the lack thereof) is materially misleading if it could cause a reasonable reader to be mistaken as to the source of the words, ideas, or data in a way that could benefit the author submitting the work. (Worthen, 2004: 444.)