--- name: academy-of-management-annals description: Use when targeting Academy of Management Annals (AMA) or deciding whether a management / organizational review or integrative article fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, contribution bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. --- # Academy of Management Annals (academy-of-management-annals) ## Journal positioning AMA is the Academy of Management's outlet for integrative, agenda-setting review articles. It does not publish primary theory (AMR) or empirical tests (AMJ); it publishes long, comprehensive syntheses that take stock of a research stream, impose order on it, and redirect it. The product is a state-of-the-field article that other scholars will cite as the canonical map of a literature. Reviews are often invited or developed in dialogue with the editors, and the bar is not just coverage but synthesis — a new organizing framework and a credible forward agenda. The audience is the whole management field, so the stream and its reorientation must matter broadly. This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live author instructions on the AOM / AMA site and the submission system. ## When to trigger - The author names AMA (or the AOM review outlet / FT50 management elite) as the venue. - A scholar wants to write the definitive review of an established or fast-moving management stream and propose where it should go next. - A narrative review needs upgrading from summary to a synthesizing framework with an agenda. - The author needs AMA's desk-reject risks and a credible `academy-of-management-review` / `academy-of-management-journal` / `journal-of-management-en` alternative list. ## Scope & topic fit - Integrative reviews across all management domains — OB, strategy, organizational theory, HRM, entrepreneurship, international — that synthesize and redirect a stream. - Articles that reconcile competing findings, integrate fragmented or cross-disciplinary literatures, or surface an emerging phenomenon and organize the nascent work on it. - Comprehensive coverage of the relevant body of work, not a selective or partisan reading. - A clear research agenda: the unanswered questions, tensions, and methods that should drive the next decade. ## Method & evidence bar - The contribution is synthesis, not novelty-from-scratch: the article must impose a new organizing logic (a typology, framework, process model, or integrative lens) on the literature. - Coverage must be comprehensive and the review method transparent; the boundaries of the stream and the inclusion logic should be defensible. - Going beyond a meta-analysis or a list: the value is the conceptual map and the agenda, not a tally of findings. - Even-handed treatment of competing perspectives, with the tensions named and, where possible, reconciled. ## Structure & house style - Articles are long and comprehensive; expect an explicit organizing framework introduced early and used to structure the whole review. - The synthesis culminates in a forward agenda — the questions, boundary conditions, and methodological moves that should define future work. - House style rewards authoritative, well-structured prose and figures/tables that map the literature (frameworks, typologies, timelines). - Many AMA pieces are invited or pre-discussed with editors; a proposal or pre-submission inquiry is often expected — re-check current practice. ## Official-submission checklist - Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the official source anchors for this journal family, then cite the current journal-specific page you checked. - Search the live site for "Academy of Management Annals submission guidelines / information for contributors" and follow the current version. - Re-check the current proposal / pre-submission-inquiry process and whether unsolicited submissions are accepted, plus length expectations for review articles. - Re-check abstract format, anonymization, reference style (APA), and AI-use disclosure policies. - If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win. ## Pre-submission self-check - [ ] One sentence stating the organizing framework — the new way the stream is mapped. - [ ] Coverage is comprehensive and the review method/boundaries are transparent. - [ ] The article redirects the stream with a concrete, credible future agenda. - [ ] It is synthesis, not a primary theory paper (AMR) or an empirical study (AMJ). - [ ] Framing, references, and any required proposal/inquiry match the current AMA process. ## Common desk-reject triggers - A narrative summary with no synthesizing framework and no agenda. - Selective or partisan coverage that ignores major parts of the literature. - A primary-theory paper (belongs at AMR) or an empirical study (belongs at AMJ) mislabeled as a review. - Bypassing the expected proposal / editorial-dialogue process where it applies. ## Re-routing decision - Primary new theory with no data → `academy-of-management-review`; an empirical test → `academy-of-management-journal`. - A shorter or more empirical review → `journal-of-management-en` (which also publishes reviews and meta-analyses). - A strategy-stream review → `strategic-management-journal`; organization-theory synthesis → `organization-science` or `organization-studies`. - Entrepreneurship-stream review → `entrepreneurship-theory-and-practice`; international → `journal-of-international-business-studies`; innovation/STI → `research-policy`; interdisciplinary work-and-organization → `human-relations`. ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Academy of Management Annals [Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics> [Method/evidence] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check] [Re-route suggestion] ```