Click for Academy of Management home page

A A A
Academy of Management

Information for Reviewers

Content Areas

AMLE publishes a wide range of materials devoted to management education in colleges and universities, and indeed, in all organizations that formally foster learning about management, in four content areas:


Research & Reviews

This section contains articles, including quantitative and qualitative empirical manuscripts, theoretical discourses and models, literature reviews, and general or specific appraisals of approaches to learning and management education. Authors of submissions for this section are encouraged to consider relevant theoretical perspectives when developing their manuscripts, but it is not necessarily required that the manuscript make a theoretical contribution to be accepted for publication.

We strongly encourage authors to report effect sizes in empirically oriented submissions. There are two major classes of effect sizes for parametric analyses. The first class of effect sizes involves standardized mean differences. Effect sizes in this class include indices, such as Glass' Δ , Hedges' g, and Cohen's d. Because all parametric analyses are part of one General Linear Model family, and are correlational, variance-accounted-for effect sizes can be computed in all studies, including both experimental and non-experimental studies. Effect sizes in this second class include indices, such as r2R2, and ŋ2.

Although there is no formal page limit, manuscripts submitted for this section are typically between 20 and 40 pages. As always, length should reflect the value of the contribution.

Essays, Dialogues, & Interviews

Essays are original commentaries or critiques. Narrative accounts of author experiences with specific instructional technologies, techniques, courses, or program creation are not essays. Dialogues are responses to papers previously published in AMLE. Interviews are discussions with academics, educators, and business or thought leaders that would be of interest to our readership.

Dialogues are rooted in Exemplary Contributions, Research & Reviews, or Essays published in AMLE, and should broadly advance the state of scholarship in the area of the target paper, as opposed to being primarily critiques of the reasoning or methodology of the target paper.

Exemplary Contributions

Exemplary Contributions are invited from noteworthy scholars and practitioners. They are peer-reviewed just as contributions to the other sections.

Book & Resource Reviews

AMLE publishes reviews of resources intended to foster learning (books, videos, simulations, exercises, etc.). These reviews are not peer-reviewed, although the editor for this section often encourages rewrites to improve initial submissions.

Guidelines

Reviewers: Please take a moment to update your contact information in the Manuscript Central system. The Manuscript Central system is not linked to the Academy's database. Changes made to your "MY AOM" account are not automatically transferred to Manuscript Central. Therefore, in order for the editorial team to effectively communicate with you, we need your correct email address. We ask that you do not create duplicate accounts in the system.

You can access your AMLE Manuscript Central account at mc.manuscriptcentral.com/amle.

After logging in to the system, click on the "Edit Account" feature located on the upper-right corner of the home page. Please scroll through the pages, updating your contact information and/or keywords as necessary. Be sure to click on the "Finish" button to save your updates. You may contact the AMLE Managing Editor, Stacey Victor (svictor@aom.org), with any questions.

General Procedure

To submit your reviews, please go to mc.manuscriptcentral.com/amle and log in to your account. Manuscripts assigned to you for review are listed in the "Awaiting Reviewer Scores" list below. You can view the manuscript by clicking on its title. To view reviewer instructions and access the score sheet, click on the "View Details" button.

Comments to Authors

  1. ALWAYS maintain a polite, professional, constructive tone.
  2. DO try to make your revisions developmental. We are trying to develop authors as well as evaluate their work. We would not want to lose someone who might subsequently contribute greatly to management learning and education research, but was dissuaded by a caustic or overly critical review process as they are beginning to learn to conduct research in this area.
  3. PLEASE remember that you've not been asked to be a copy editor. An increasing number of authors submitting to AMLE are non-native English speakers. From time to time you may get a manuscript that has room for improvement in writing style, grammar, etc. Try to differentiate between the quality of the ideas and the quality of the writing. Your role is to make suggestions where needed in terms of improving the quality of writing, not to correct each and every typo. Stay focused on the big picture (the ideas) to the degree possible.
  4. Be open to considering various types of potential contributions for Research and Reviews manuscripts. Papers can make theoretical, empirical, and/or practical contributions. Regardless of the nature of the contribution, papers should make connections with prior published research. If the work is empirical, then full information regarding statistical tests and effect sizes should be reported. For more detail on effect sizes, please review the revised guide for submitters.
  5. Please remember that essays are different from research and reviews articles and therefore should be reviewed differently. Essays are to be strongly argued, provocative critical commentaries or critiques relevant to management education and learning. As such, theoretical contributions are not necessary for essays, but arguments should be sound, logically coherent, and well-supported.
  6. Be consistent. One of the worst things a reviewer can do is pile praise upon the authors and then recommend that the action editor reject the manuscript. Such reviews place the action editor in the very awkward position of having to reject articles despite seemingly positive reviews that are not, in reality, positive. Please make sure that your comments to the authors are consistent with any comments you provide for the editor.
  7. DO NOT give an editorial opinion about publication in your comments to the authors (e.g., "this is a fine paper that should definitely be published"). Reviewers often disagree about the bottom-line decision. The Editor must weigh all considerations voiced and then write an editorial decision.
  8. DO separate and number your comments, rather than writing them in straight narrative style. Then in communicating with authors, the editor can say things like "pay particular attention to points 2 and 5 raised by Reviewer #9999."
  9. DO cite page numbers and line numbers when referring to specific sections of the manuscript.
  10. There is no clearly preferred strategy for organizing comments to the authors. Some reviewers organize their comments in terms of the rating dimensions. Others address points sequentially, as they appear in the paper. Still others organize their comments by importance: Most critical concerns first, followed by relatively minor points. Use the approach that best suits you.

Manuscript Evaluation Form, with Comments for Editor

Use this section sparingly. My preference is for you to communicate the same information to authors as you do the Editor. Occasionally, however, additional comments are appropriate, e.g.:

  1. A clarification of your recommendation, e.g., "If it were up to me, I'd publish this if the author successfully deals with the concerns raised in point 3 of my Comments to Authors."
  2. Contextual information, e.g., "Please interpret my comments in light of the fact that I have a strong bias against this general approach to the topic..."
  3. Issues about which you are uncertain, e.g., "I think there's a relatively large literature on this topic in sociology that the author is ignoring, but..."

Editorial Board Membership

Each year the Editor reviews the composition of the Editorial Board (EB) and may invite new members to join. Those EB members then serve for the duration of the current editor's term, which is three years if you are selected during an editorial leadership team transition or less if you are selected in a subsequent year.

The current term began July 1, 2014.  Ad hoc reviewers who aspire to board membership, or current EB members who would like to be on subsequent boards, are encouraged to consider the criteria used to make decisions about who to invite to full board membership:

  • Scholarly Productivity: EB members have demonstrated an ability to publish in top American and international journals, including AMLE and related management education journals (e.g., Journal of Management Education).
  • Reviewing Quality: EB members have demonstrated the ability to write good reviews. Action editors grade the quality of each review on three dimensions using a five-point scale.  Editors rate the degree to which a review is fair, informative, and constructive.
  • Reviewing Conscientiousness: EB members have performed their reviewing duties conscientiously. In practice, this is assessed in two ways: average time taken to return reviews and the percentage of review requests that are accepted rather than declined. Conscientious reviewers accept nearly all manuscripts sent to them and take less than 30 days to complete the review.

Academy of Management
Member Services
Join|Renew|Login
Academy of Management
Online Opportunities
Advertising
Academy of Management
Recognition
Awards|Leadership