Submitting to
Academy of Management Perspectives

We welcome your manuscripts at Academy of Management Perspectives (AMP)! Please ensure your manuscripts follow AMP’s guidelines for a successful submission.

AMP manuscripts must be:

• Relevant: Inform an issue of evident importance to managerial practice and/or policy, and 
• Rigorous: Engage in rigorous and original conceptual or empirical analysis, and
• Readable: Concisely and clearly convey key ideas to a non-specialized audience
  

Relevant: Manuscripts should focus on an issue that matters to managers. The managerial issue must be front and center, well-supported, and maintain central focus throughout the manuscript. AMP does not publish theory driven papers, even if they have managerial implications tacked on.

Rigorous: Manuscripts should present rigorous original analysis of an issue that is clearly important to managers. AMP does not publish opinion pieces, or practical translations of previously published studies. AMP’s standards of rigor and originality are the same as any other top scholarly journal. Manuscripts should meet current standards of scientific rigor, so managers can rely on it. 

Readable: AMP papers summarize complex methods and analyses in the body of the paper, while the explicit details are placed in supplements. At AMP, papers are about 1/3rd shorter than standard academic articles. AMP also uses endnotes rather than footnotes. If your manuscript is not written in a way that connects with thoughtful practitioners, then it is not suited to AMP. Please do not submit a paper to AMP that was rejected at a standard journal without first substantively rewriting it to fit AMP’s style.

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:

• (Re)Building a Bridge between Scholars and Practitioners: Get AMPed!
• Management Practice and Policy: A Guide to Writing for AMP

Please note that AMP accepts three types of manuscripts:

• Standard Articles
• Constructive Confrontations
• Practitioner Perspectives

We describe each type of manuscript below and provide a template for formatting each.

Submission Requirements

When authors submit their manuscript to AMP for publication consideration, they agree to abide by AMP’s publication requirements. Specifically, an author must:

• Agree that the manuscript is not under review for publication elsewhere and will not be submitted to another publication entity during the review period at AMP;
• Confirm that the manuscript has not previously been submitted to AMP for review. (Note that neither publication in Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings nor presentation at a conference disqualifies a manuscript from submission to AMP); and
• Agree that working papers, prior drafts, and/or final versions of submitted manuscripts that are posted on a website (e.g., personal, departmental, university, or working series site) will be taken down during the review process.
  

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.

Articles

Most AMP publications are standard articles. AMP articles 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 articles. The open call for papers explains this, and the template is provided below. Authors are NOT required to follow this template, but articles should address the content contained within it.

An AMP article 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 generally follows the AOM Style Guide for Authors, but: 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 are provided leeway in early rounds.

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.

Constructive Confrontations

Academic debates can be fun. But frequently they are inconsequential and inconclusive. Opposing authors tend to talk past each other, agreeing to disagree, and leaving core issues unresolved. Readers may be left without a conclusion and with more confusion.

In contrast, Constructive Confrontations articles at Academy of Management Perspectives (AMP) are designed to abate ongoing debates about important managerial issues by bringing scholars with conflicting perspectives together as co-authors. Co-authors cooperate on a mutually agreed study rather than talk past each other through independent, contrasting essays. Please see this article for an explanation of the importance of this format.

Co-authors of Constructive Confrontations must be credited authors on previously published articles that are germane to opposing sides of the debated managerial issue. Intended co-authors are strongly encouraged to submit a proposal before writing a Constructive Confrontations article. The proposal template is available here. Email completed proposals to Mike Barnett, AMP Editor. Please write “Constructive Confrontations Proposal” in the subject line.  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. Note that editorial encouragement of a proposal has no bearing on the peer review process, but it does reduce the likelihood of desk rejection.

Constructive Confrontations are similar to standard articles. They are the same length as standard AMP articles (20 double-spaced pages) and, likewise, engage in rigorous original conceptual or empirical analysis. They 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. Therefore, 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 contrasting perspectives.

There is no required format for Constructive Confrontations, but the following structure or something similar is recommended.

Abstract and title: AMP papers must have an engaging but accurate title and a concise abstract of no more than 200 words that provides potential readers with enough, but only just enough, information to quickly and accurately determine if the article is relevant to them. The abstract should succinctly state (a) the important managerial issue that is the subject of debate, (b) conflicting perspectives on this issue, (c) how this paper analyzes the debate, (d) the results of the analysis, and (e) how these results abate the debate. 

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 no more than two double-spaced pages. 

Issue description: AMP is not interested in purely academic debate. Disagreements on theoretical mechanisms and broad philosophies are not germane to AMP. Instead, AMP seeks insights on issues that matter to managerial practice and policy. Thus, it is critical to clearly articulate the focal managerial 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. Make sure that the issue is well-bounded and within the scope of the expertise of the co-authors. This section should fill two to four double-spaced pages. 

Conflicting perspectives: Review and synthesize relevant literature to accurately describe the current state of the differing perspectives on this issue. Do not frame debate as a conflict between authors (e.g., Friedman vs. Freeman). Rather, broaden the review to include a range of studies on each side, not just those of a single author or paper. 

Points of debate: What are the specific points of contention? Narrow down and specify the ways in which these perspectives differ. It is essential to get beyond broad philosophical disagreements, to clarify the mechanisms, measures, or other specific factors that underpin the conflict. Charts and figures are encouraged to illustrate key points. 

Clarifying analysis: What specific study can resolve a key aspect of this debate? This is the core work of the paper. Justify, describe, and conduct an original and rigorous study that provides a clear resolution to one or more points of debate previously outlined. Empirical studies are encouraged, but conceptual studies are allowable. Use plain language and summary charts, figures, and graphs. The usual artifacts of a robust scholarly study are required, but at AMP they are placed in a supplement. 

Results and implications: What have you resolved with this study? Reveal the results of the analysis and clearly explain how they abate the debate and inform managerial practice and policy regarding the focal issue. 

Future research: What else can be done to fully abate this debate? Overview the points of debate around this issue that remain unsettled and describe a specific set of studies that can address these points. 

Conclusion: In one or two paragraphs, restate what the essay 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. 

Though it is not in the above format, please see here for an example of a co-authored study that sought to resolve a debate about a managerial issue. Further, please note that an article that abates a managerially relevant debate can also be submitted as a standard article and be written by authors who have not staked out a side previously. See above for a description of our standard article format. See here for an example of an article of this type, though not in AMP format.

Practitioner Perspectives

Academy of Management Perspectives (AMP) publishes rigorous academic studies that are of relevance to important issues of managerial practice and policy. But as decades of striving to matter to managers has shown us, a great many of those who can conduct rigorous academic studies are not well-versed in what matters to managers. To better understand what matters in the “real world,” academics must stop talking at, and start co-creating with, practitioners. To that end, AMP welcomes Practitioner Perspectives essays.

Note that these are essays, NOT standard articles. Their intent is to identify important areas of practice and policy for which managers still need rigorous scholarly insights. But the essays themselves are not rigorous original conceptual or empirical studies.  If you are providing a solution to an important managerial problem, such as a new framework, then please submit a standard article (which will need to be supported with rigorous scholarly analysis, as described above). Also note that collaboration between a practitioner and a scholar does not make a manuscript a Practitioner Perspectives essay. Such collaboration is also a welcome feature of our standard articles. More generally, be aware that a Practitioner Perspectives essay is not a less rigorous route to a traditional scholarly contribution; it is a different path with different aims. These essays outline issues that need to be addressed, based on the direct experiences of senior practitioners, so that others can tackle them through rigorous scholarly analysis.

Practitioner Perspectives essays must be co-authored by a senior practitioner with direct and extensive experience with an important managerial issue and; a scholar with significant expertise in that same area. Practitioner Perspectives essays draw on the direct experiences of the practitioner to bring attention to an important area of managerial practice or policy and combine this with the expertise of the academic to clarify what is already known and jointly chart a path forward.

Intended co-authors are strongly encouraged to submit a proposal before writing a Practitioner Perspectives essay. The proposal template is available here. Email completed proposals to Mike Barnett, AMP Editor. Please write “Practitioner Perspectives Proposal” in the subject line. 

After reviewing 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 AMP 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. Note that editorial encouragement of a proposal has no bearing on the peer review process for the full essay, but it does reduce the likelihood of desk rejection.

There is no required format for the full essay, but the following structure or something similar is recommended.

Abstract and title: AMP papers must have an engaging but accurate title and a concise abstract of no more than 200 words that provides potential readers with enough, but only just enough, information to quickly and accurately determine if the article is relevant to them. For this type of essay, the abstract should succinctly state (a) the important managerial issue motivating the essay, (b) the relevant qualifications of the co-authors to inform this issue, (c) what is known about this issue, practically and academically, and (d) aspects of this issue that require further study.

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 essay’s structure. Limit the introduction to one or two double-spaced pages.

Issue description: AMP is not interested in purely theoretical issues. Instead, AMP seeks insights on real-world issues that matter to managerial practice and policy. Clearly articulate the focal managerial 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. Make sure that the issue is well-bounded, manageable, and within the scope of the direct experience and expertise of the practitioner and scholar. This section should fill two or three double-spaced pages.

Practical insights: Here, the practitioner co-author takes the lead, overviewing their relevant background and describing their direct experiences dealing with key aspects of the focal issue.  Indirect experience via consulting, teaching, researching, etc. is not valid for this role. The practitioner should be as specific, honest, and open as possible about their experiences. Readers will benefit from understanding their struggles and not just their successes with this important managerial issue. Overall, this section should provide a clear picture of how the issue is framed and understood in practice.

Scholarly insights: The scholar co-author takes the lead on this section and details how the focal managerial issue has been addressed in the academic literature. Strive to explain the scholarly evidence to date in an accessible way. Detailed and specialized data/information can be placed in a supplement if needed. Overall, this section must provide a clear picture of how this issue is framed and understood academically.

Research roadmap: The purpose of these essays is to improve the relevance of management research by highlighting the unresolved issues that are of importance to managerial practice and policy. Thus, this is the most critical section of the essay. Assess how well extant research frames and informs the issue and clarify gaps that remain. Identify specific research questions, settings, and methods that should be undertaken to fill these gaps. Charts and figures are encouraged, where they ease and further understanding.

Conclusion: In one or two paragraphs, restate what the essay 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.

Formatting

In general, AMP follows the AOM Style Guide for Authors. However, there is one explicit exception: AMP uses endnotes instead of in-text citations, reference lists, and footnotes.

Endnote examples

1. Cheryl Strayed, Wild: From Lost to Found on the Pacific Crest Trail (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2012), 87–88.
2. Strayed, Wild, 261, 265.

1. Meghan Daum, ed., Selfish, Shallow, and Self-Absorbed: Sixteen Writers on the Decision Not to Have Kids (New York: Picador, 2015), 32.
2. Daum, Selfish, 134–35.

1. Brian Grazer and Charles Fishman, A Curious Mind: The Secret to a Bigger Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2015), 188.
2. Grazer and Fishman, Curious Mind, 190.

1. Gabriel García Márquez, Love in the Time of Cholera, trans. Edith Grossman (London: Cape, 1988), 242–55.
2. García Márquez, Cholera, 33.

1. Glenn Gould, “Streisand as Schwarzkopf,” in The Glenn Gould Reader, ed. Tim Page (New York: Vintage Books, 1984), 310.
2. Gould, “Streisand as Schwarzkopf,” 309.

1. Benjamin Bagley, “Loving Someone in Particular,” Ethics 125, no. 2 (January 2015): 484–85.
2. Bagley, “Loving Someone in Particular,” 501.

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.

1. Jui-Ch’i Liu, “Beholding the Feminine Sublime: Lee Miller’s War Photography,” Signs 40, no. 2 (Winter 2015): 311.
2. Liu, “Beholding the Feminine Sublime,” 312.

To ease the burden on authors, initial submissions are given leeway on formatting. Manuscripts will not be 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 manuscripts must fully comply with AMP formatting as a condition of acceptance.

Submission Process

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!

Directions for New Users

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:

1. Email and name: Enter salutation, name, and email address
2. Address: Enter mailing address
3. User ID & password: Here, you must create a password.
   • Keyword: We require that you submit three keywords for each document you are submitting. From the drop-down menu of keywords, select a keyword, then click Add
   • Unavailable dates: This is only for reviewers. Please leave blank.
   • Signature: Insert your name and title.
   • Browse: This should be left blank; you will upload your document later. 

Directions for Users with an Account

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:

1. Type, title & abstract
   • Document Type: From the drop-down menu, select type of document.
   • Insert title.
   • Insert abstract. 
2. Attributes
   Keyword: We require that you submit three keywords for each document you are submitting. From the drop-down menu of keywords, select a keyword, then click Add. 
3. Authors & institutions
   This page allows you to add additional authors. 
4. Details & comments
   Answer all questions on this page. Please note that you should include any acknowledgements in the Cover Letter section. All author identifiers must be removed from your work prior to submission. Refer to submission requirements for details. 
5. File upload
   Please note that File Designation is a drop-down list and refers to the type of document that the author is uploading: cover letter, main document, supplementary file for review (which can be viewed by editors and reviewers), or supplementary file not for review (for the editor's eyes only). 
6. Review & submit
   This page allows you to review your entire application and make any necessary changes before submitting.