AMP Open Call for Papers
ATTENTION! Please disengage the autopilot. Check the muscle memory. We do not want more of the same. Academy of Management Perspectives (AMP) is different.
Are you thinking of submitting a manuscript to AMP? We appreciate your interest. We have a terrific global team of engaged editors eagerly awaiting the opportunity to help develop your work. But please send us papers that fit our unique mission.
AMP publishes papers that matter to managers. Our field has called for managerially relevant work for decades. AMP is here to help realize this important goal. Problem is, our field is not accustomed to relevance. And so out of habit, many send us papers that don’t fit our mission.
If your paper is theory driven, it is NOT suited to AMP. AMP is a journal of first choice for papers that inform managerial practice and policy. We are not a backstop for papers that miss at AMJ, AMR, or other top theory-driven journals. It’s not enough to add managerial implications onto a paper rejected at such journals. AMP papers must be managerially driven from the start.
Do the contents of your paper inform the practice of management in a specific and significant way? After reading your paper, did we learn something new and meaningful about an important aspect of how to manage and govern an organization? Does your paper provide evidence ample to drive managers (including policy makers) to reconsider a particular practice? We will assess your paper by these criteria, and so should you. But be as honest and objective about the relevance of your work as possible. Don’t fool yourself with vague sentiment about broad influence on generic aspects of management. Ask others for their views of your work – especially practitioners. Consider co-authoring with practitioners. But understand: If it is not relevant to managers, then it is not relevant to AMP.
While relevance is our most prominent characteristic, it does not come at the expense of rigor. AMP does NOT publish papers that lack rigorous original analysis. Though our mission differs, our analytical standards are the same as those of other elite journals. Opinions, overviews, descriptive arguments, philosophical treatise, etc. are not within our purview, even if they convey interesting perspectives on management. The managers who rely on AMP content need evidence, not conjecture. So, the claims of an AMP paper must be supported with stringent scholarly analysis. This robust analysis may be empirical (quantitative or qualitative) or conceptual.
Finally, AMP does NOT use the exact same format as other AOM journals. Yes, the fonts and indents and all that good stuff are the same. But because AMP papers must be accessible to a non-specialized audience, we do a few things differently. For one, we use endnotes. For another, we place detailed analyses in supplements and only summarize them in the body of the paper. This allows AMP manuscripts to run about 20 body pages in length, not the standard 30+. We also favor plain language over jargon. And, of course, rather than tack on managerial implications at the end of a paper, AMP papers make the practical case from the start.
To sum up, AMP papers are RELEVANT, RIGOROUS, and READABLE. This means that they must do all of the following:
- Inform an issue of evident importance to managerial practice and/or policy, and
- Engage in rigorous and original conceptual or empirical analysis, and
- Concisely and clearly convey key ideas to a non-specialized audience
For more details, please see these editorials:
- https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amp.2024.0058
- https://journals.aom.org/doi/epub/10.5465/amp.2023.0283
An AMP paper must achieve all of the above criteria, but there is no single format for doing so. Below, we provide a sample format. If you have a better way, we are all ears – so long as it produces a rigorously relevant & readable paper.
Sample Format for an AMP Manuscript
Abstract and title. An AMP paper begins with an engaging but accurate title and a concise abstract of no more than 200 words. Provide potential readers with enough, but only just enough, information to quickly and accurately determine if the article is relevant to them. The abstract should state: a) the important managerial issue motivating the paper; b) how the paper analyzes this important issue; c) what the analysis finds; and d) how these findings substantively affect practice/policy.
Introduction. The content of an introduction overlaps with that of an abstract, but the introduction adds detail. Nevertheless, as with all aspects of an AMP paper, it should be concise. View it as a sort of executive summary. Open with a paragraph or two that draws the reader in, then briefly overview the paper’s structure. Limit the introduction to two double-spaced pages.
Problem statement. The key feature of an AMP paper is its focus on an important managerial issue. From the start, clearly articulate the focal issue and make a convincing case for its importance. In addition to scholarly literature, authors may refer to practitioner and government reports, as well as credible media accounts, to validate the importance of the issue. This section should fill two to four double-spaced pages.
What we know. Next, review relevant literature to accurately portray baseline knowledge about the issue. Consider literatures beyond one’s usual disciplinary base, especially if insights are limited within the focal discipline. Again, official reports and statistics from government agencies, NGOs, consulting firms, analysts, etc. may be referenced, so long as they are credible. The length of this section will vary, depending upon how established, multidisciplinary, and debated the issue, but it should not exceed four double-spaced pages. Use summary tables where needed to save space. Anything more can be placed in a supplement.
What we don’t know. What is missing? Make a strong, objective case for omissions, flaws, points of debate or other aspects of the literature that leave the focal issue inadequately explained. This section should be no longer than two double-spaced pages.
Conceptual or empirical analysis. This is the core work of the paper: scientific analysis that provides evidence to bridge the gap in understanding of this problem. The length of this section will vary with the type of conceptual or empirical analysis undertaken. Once again, though, it must be concise. Use plain language and summary charts, figures, and graphs. The usual artifacts of a robust scholarly study are required, but they are placed in a supplement.
What we have learned. This is the paper’s core contribution. Expound on how the findings advance understanding of the focal issue. Delve into implementation steps if the study provides such insights. Discuss boundary conditions, noting where the findings hold and distinguishing contexts in which they do not. Specify constraints on interpretation based upon limitations in data and analysis. Clarify aspects of the issue that remain open and require further analysis. Consider charts, figures, and other ways to visually display the results. Though focused on practical implications, the findings may also bring to light flaws and gaps in theory that warrant mention. This should be the longest section of the paper but, yes, also concise.
Conclusion. Within the space of one or two paragraphs, restate what the paper has done and remind readers why it matters. Do not simply restate the abstract. Conclude on a high note, perhaps
with a call to action.
Please heed what we have written above before submitting a manuscript to AMP. Thanks!
Please feel free to contact AMP Editorial Office with any questions.
Be sure to review our Style Guide for manuscript requirements, prior to submitting.
