The editorial column published in the October 2005 issue of the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) provides a comprehensive and valuable resource for anyone interested in the publication process at AMJ. Authored by the editorial team, the column reflects on their first year of handling manuscript submissions. Its primary aim is to address frequently asked questions regarding AMJ’s publication goals and processes, while also highlighting recent changes in journal policies and operations that were not yet widely known at the time. The article elaborates on AMJ’s mission, expectations, policies, and operations for readers, reviewers, and both current and prospective authors.
The mission of AMJ, revised in 2004, is to publish empirical research that tests, extends, or builds management theory and contributes to management practice. The journal welcomes all empirical methods, including qualitative, quantitative, field, laboratory, and mixed methods. To be considered for publication, a manuscript must demonstrate strong empirical and theoretical contributions and emphasize the importance of these contributions for the field of management. Consequently, AMJ prioritizes empirical studies that investigate issues of high relevance to management theory and practice, and that test, extend, or construct robust theoretical frameworks. The journal does not restrict itself to a particular discipline, level of analysis, or national context.
One of the important questions addressed in the column concerns whether AMJ is primarily a “micro” or “macro” journal. The editors clarify that AMJ is both, serving as a “big tent” journal with a broad readership across many areas of management. Analyses of publications between 2002 and 2004 show that approximately half of the articles were micro-level and half macro-level in focus. Similarly, Kirkman and Law’s (2005) review of international management research over 35 years found that articles were roughly split between micro categories, such as organizational behavior and human resources, and macro categories, such as strategy and organizational theory. This balance underscores AMJ’s commitment to publishing impactful articles across the spectrum of management scholarship.
The editorial also details AMJ’s publication criteria and the most common reasons for manuscript rejection. Given AMJ’s aspiration to be the “journal of choice” for the best empirical work in management, its standards are necessarily high. Manuscripts are evaluated on three core pillars: theoretical contribution, empirical contribution, and practical contribution. Rynes (2002) had previously observed that in nearly five out of six rejected manuscripts, perceived low contribution was the primary or secondary reason for rejection. Problems with empirical contribution often include inadequate construct validity, poor operationalization of measures, and weak research designs that fail to convincingly test research questions. Issues of theoretical contribution frequently arise when authors do not clearly articulate how their work advances theory. Simply listing prior empirical findings without offering theoretical logic is insufficient. Authors are advised to frame theoretical contributions explicitly and to avoid common pitfalls discussed by Sutton and Staw (1995). With regard to practical contribution, authors must emphasize the managerial relevance of their findings, discussing potential implications for current or future practitioners.
In addition to highlighting rejection factors, the editorial outlines strategies for avoiding them. Authors are strongly encouraged to seek early peer feedback, ideally before data collection, to identify design flaws that are difficult or impossible to correct later. Clear, novel, and engaging writing is also emphasized, as clarity of expression is closely tied to clarity of thought. Authors are referred to resources such as Huff’s (1998) Writing for Scholarly Publication and the AMJ reviewer guidelines available on the journal’s website. Reviewing award-winning AMJ articles is suggested as another way to understand what constitutes a strong contribution.
The article also provides insights into the operational aspects of AMJ. Each year, the journal receives 800–900 new submissions and 200–300 revisions, in addition to submissions for special research forums. To manage this workload, the editorial team expanded from five to eight members, and the editorial board grew by approximately 20 members. Roughly 30 percent of submissions are desk rejected, typically within five days, for reasons such as lack of fit with AMJ’s mission or insufficient quality. The overall acceptance rate is about eight percent, with sixteen percent of initial submissions receiving an invitation to revise and resubmit. Although this acceptance rate is low, the editorial emphasizes that AMJ’s focus is not on rejection but on identifying and developing promising manuscripts.
The review process typically involves five individuals: the editor, an associate editor, and three reviewers. Once assigned, associate editors hold full decision-making authority over manuscripts, functioning similarly to business unit heads under the leadership of the editor. Reviewers are selected based on expertise, using a database of thousands of profiles. The final decision rests with the action editor, who integrates reviewer input with a broader evaluation of the manuscript. Reviewers’ recommendations are not treated as votes, and it is possible for a manuscript with positive reviews to be rejected or one with critical reviews to receive a revision opportunity, depending on the strength of the arguments. This strong role of action editors ensures balanced decision-making, especially when reviewers’ perspectives diverge.
The editorial also addresses acceptance-to-publication timelines. At the time, the average lag between acceptance and publication was about 12 months, although accepted articles were posted online earlier. Authors had opportunities to review edited versions and make final corrections prior to publication. The article also explains how scholars can become reviewers or board members, noting that high-quality, developmental, and timely reviews are the primary criteria for selection and advancement. AMJ strives for diversity in its editorial board and values expertise and developmental feedback over prior publication history in the journal.
Other issues discussed include manuscript length and research notes, with AMJ moving away from rigid page limits in favor of focusing on contribution relative to length. Qualitative research, meta-analyses, and replication studies are welcomed, provided they offer theoretical insights. The article also highlights the importance of adhering to AMJ’s style guide to avoid negative first impressions. Finally, the editors mention the forthcoming transition to a web-based submission system (ScholarOne’s Manuscript Central), which would improve efficiency and reduce review times through automated reminders and enhanced reviewer assignment processes.
In conclusion, the October 2005 editorial column sought to clarify AMJ’s mission, processes, and expectations while also underscoring recent policy and procedural changes. By addressing common author concerns and emphasizing strategies for success, the editorial aimed to enhance understanding of the journal’s standards and to encourage future high-quality submissions.
Reference: Rynes, S. L., Hillman, A., Ireland, R. D., Kirkman, B., Law, K., Miller, C. C., Rajagopalan, N., & Shapiro, D. (2005). From the editors: Everything you’ve always wanted to know about “AMJ” (but may have been afraid to ask). The Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 732–737. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20159692.
Main Reasons for Manuscript Rejection at AMJ (October 2005 Editorial)
| Category | Common Problems Leading to Rejection |
|---|---|
| Theoretical Contribution | • Lack of clear articulation of how the study advances theory. • Merely listing prior empirical findings without offering theoretical logic. • Absence of underlying theoretical mechanisms explaining variable relationships. • Failure to provide meaningful new insights, falsify traditional assumptions, build theory inductively, or clarify boundaries of existing theory. |
| Empirical Contribution | • Use of poorly validated or inappropriate measures (construct validity issues). • Measurement tools that fail to capture constructs described in the theory section. • Inadequate research designs (e.g., ambiguous or reverse causality, omitted variable bias, common method/source variance). • Insufficient evidence that the topic adds value beyond existing literature. • Studies focusing on overly narrow or marginally relevant topics. |
| Practical Contribution | • Failure to demonstrate implications for managers or organizations. • Lack of clarity on what practitioners should do differently after reading the study. • No discussion of potential applications for current or future management practice. |
| General Issues | • Perceived low overall contribution (identified as the primary or secondary reason for rejection in nearly 5 out of 6 cases, Rynes 2002). • Weak integration of theoretical, empirical, and practical pillars. • Poor framing of the manuscript’s importance to the broader management field. |