555 Pleasantville Road, Suite N200, Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510, USA
Before submitting to Academy of Management Perspectives (AMP), please review our mission statement and ensure your work fits within our scope. Additional details of work suited to AMP are provided in these two editorials:
See below for general submission requirements and for specific requirements and guidelines for each type of submission to be considered for publication: Articles, Constructive Confrontations, and Practitioner Perspectives.
AMP papers must provide rigorous original analysis that clearly informs important issues of managerial practice or policy. There is no one-size-fits-all structure for doing this. However, there are specific types of content contained in such papers. A template is provided below. Authors are NOT required to follow this template, but papers should address the content contained within it.
Note that AMP papers should be no longer than 20 double-spaced pages, excluding references, tables, figures, and supplements.
Abstract and Title: An AMP paper begins with an engaging but accurate title and a concise abstract of no more than 200 words. These items should provide potential readers with enough, but only just enough, information to quickly and accurately determine if the article is relevant to them. Specifically, 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 or 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 the relevant literature to accurately portray baseline knowledge about the issue. Authors should consider literature beyond their usual disciplinary base, especially if insights are limited within the focal discipline. Again, official reports and statistics from government agencies, NGOs, consulting firms, analysts, and so on may be referenced, as 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 Do Not 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: What are the implications of the study? 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 these findings hold and distinguishing contexts in which they do not apply. Specify any 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.
AMP follows the AOM Style Guide for Authors, with the following exceptions: AMP uses endnotes instead of in-text citations, reference lists, and footnotes.
Endnote examples:
Book with single author
A book with an editor in place of an author includes the abbreviation ed. (editor; for more than one editor, use eds.). Note that the shortened form does not include ed.
Book with Multiple Authors
Book with Author plus Editor or Translator
Chapter in an Edited Book
Journal Article
The URL in the following example indicates that the article was consulted online; in this case, it is based on a DOI and is preferred to the URL that appears with the article.
To ease the burden on authors, initial submissions are given leeway on formatting. Papers will not be desk rejected solely on the basis of improper formatting. However, as an aid to reviewers, authors are encouraged to follow our format from the start. All papers must fully comply with our style guide as a condition of acceptance.
When authors submit their manuscript to AMP for publication consideration, they agree to abide by AMP’s publication requirements. Specifically, an author must:
Submission of a manuscript to AMP carries an implicit quid pro quo: willingness to review for AMP. The cornerstone of the editorial process at AMP is the willingness of colleagues to provide each other feedback through peer review. Authors who submit manuscripts to AMP for review are expected to reciprocate by reviewing for AMP if called upon to do so.
Follow the instructions for the web-based submission system at Manuscript Central. If you need assistance uploading your paper, please contact the ScholarOne helpline on weekdays (Monday - Friday) between 24:00 - 20:30 ET (GMT-5) at +1-434-964-4100 or 1-888-503-1050 (US). You may also email them to S1help@clarivate.com or visit their "get help now" website at: GET HELP NOW!
Go to the AMP Manuscript Central Website and log in. On the right-hand side, you will see a box that says New User? Click on "Register here."
Registering is a three-step process.
Go to the AMP Manuscript Central Website and log in. At the Welcome Page, go to Author Center. On the right-hand side of the page, you will see Author Resources. Click below to submit a new document.
This is a six-step process.
View AOM’s Ethics policy page, which includes our Code of Ethics and detailed procedures and inquiry requests.
For more information, contact amp@aom.org.
The key feature of an AMP article is its relevance to managerial practice and policy. An AMP paper is managerially relevant because it is motivated by a phenomenon of importance to economic, organizational, social, or political processes and not by filling a gap in theory. But to be relevant, AMP articles must also be rigorous. There is no reason to heed AMP’s content if the work, no matter how practical, is not evidence based and of the highest academic standards. In addition, AMP articles must be well grounded in the relevant literature, and they must accurately, thoroughly, and objectively represent the current state of this literature, warts and all.
AMP articles may be empirical or conceptual. Empirical papers in AMP use quantitative or qualitative analysis to distinguish the nature and characteristics of pertinent problems of practice and policy and to guide managerial actions toward effective resolutions. Conceptual analysis is used in AMP to systematically organize relevant literature into novel perspectives that aid practical understanding of managerial problems.
Brevity is the soul of rigorous relevance. An AMP manuscript should be no longer than 20 double-spaced pages. Authors also save space by presenting empirical materials in a simplified format. Tables, detailed descriptions of methods, robustness tests, and so forth that are essential to rigorous empirical studies are placed in supplements, not in the body of the paper. These “Additional Materials” supplements are submitted throughout the review process and posted in their final format online when a paper is accepted for publication. Moreover, AMP favors plain, concise language in lieu of academic jargon. AMP follows the AOM Style Guide for Authors, with the following exceptions: AMP uses endnotes instead of in-text citations, reference lists, and footnotes. Incorrect formatting is not a sole reason to reject a manuscript, however; authors should be provided leeway in early rounds.
Constructive Confrontations are designed to abate ongoing debates about important managerial issues by bringing scholars with conflicting perspectives together as co-authors. They improve on the former “Exchanges” format by having those with differing perspectives cooperate on a mutually agreed study rather than talking past each other through independent, contrasting essays. Co-authors of Constructive Confrontations must be credited authors on previously published articles that are germane to the debated managerial issue.
Intended co-authors are strongly encouraged to submit a proposal before writing a Constructive Confrontations article. Proposals should be around 1,000 words and must specify the debated managerial issue, briefly explain conflicting perspectives on this issue, list published work of all co-authors that underpins their perspectives on this issue, specify key point(s) of contention that the study will focus on, overview the planned study, clarify how the results of this study are expected to abate the debate, and estimate the date of submission of the full article. Proposals must be emailed directly to the Editor in Chief Mike Barnett. Please write “Constructive Confrontations Proposal” in the subject line and attach the proposal as a Word document.
After reviewing the proposal, the editor will either encourage or discourage submission of a full article, based upon the practical relevance and importance of the topic, the relevance of prior publications of the co-authors, and the rigor and relevance of the proposed study. Constructive Confrontations are as long as standard articles (20 double-spaced pages) and, likewise, may engage in conceptual or empirical analysis. These articles must be submitted through AMP’s online manuscript management system and will be double-blind peer reviewed. Accordingly, they must be written in a way that does not identify the co-authors. Accordingly, do not frame the debate as the work of one set of authors versus that of another. Instead, embed the work of each set of authors within a review and synthesis of a broader set of studies that support each perspective. The editor’s approval of a proposal does not guarantee that the full essay will be sent out for review and has no bearing on the peer review process for the full essay.
Practitioner Perspectives draw on practical experience to bring attention to specific areas of managerial practice and policy that warrant additional rigorous scholarly analysis. These essays must be co-authored by a senior practitioner with extensive experience in business, government, or non-governmental organizations, and a senior scholar with significant expertise in the focal area of the essay.
Intended co-authors are strongly encouraged to submit a proposal before writing a Practitioner Perspectives essay. Proposals should be around 500 words and must specify the practitioner and academic co-authors, describe their relevant qualifications, overview the intended topic area, and estimate the date of submission of the full essay. Proposals must be emailed directly to the Editor in Chief Mike Barnett. Please write “Practitioner Perspectives Proposal” in the subject line and attach the proposal as a Word document.
After review of the proposal, the editor will either encourage or discourage submission of a full essay, based upon the practical relevance and importance of the topic, as well as the relevant qualifications of the co-authors. Practitioner Perspectives may be as long as standard articles (20 double-spaced pages), but their minimum length is 10 double-spaced pages. Full essays must be submitted through AMP’s online manuscript management system. Given the inability to mask the co-authors in this format, Practitioner Perspectives are single-blind peer reviewed. The editor’s approval of a proposal does not guarantee that the full essay will be sent out for review and has no bearing on the peer review process for the full essay.
