--- name: administrative-science-quarterly description: Use when targeting Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) or deciding whether an organization theory / sociology-of-organizations manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. --- # Administrative Science Quarterly (administrative-science-quarterly) ## Journal positioning ASQ, published from Cornell, is one of the most selective and prestigious outlets in management and the home of organization theory and the sociology of organizations. It publishes deep, craft-intensive work — both qualitative and quantitative — whose defining feature is a major theoretical contribution to how we understand organizations as social systems. ASQ is not a place for incremental hypothesis-tweaking or applied results; it rewards papers that are theoretically ambitious, beautifully executed, and that other organizational scholars will treat as foundational. The audience is organizational sociologists and theorists, so the contribution must be conceptual, not merely empirical. 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 ASQ / Cornell / SAGE site and the submission system. ## When to trigger - The author names ASQ (or the elite organization-theory tier / FT50 management list) as the venue. - A paper makes a genuine organization-theory contribution and is executed with exceptional craft, qualitative or quantitative. - A strong empirical org study needs re-framing so the theoretical contribution — not the finding — leads. - The author needs ASQ's desk-reject risks and a credible `organization-science` / `academy-of-management-journal` / `organization-studies` alternative list. ## Scope & topic fit - Organization theory and the sociology of organizations: institutions, identity, categories, status, networks, organizational learning, demography, culture, and field-level dynamics. - Both rich qualitative/ethnographic work and rigorous quantitative work — taste is for theoretical depth, not method. - Phenomena studied as windows onto how organizations and organizational fields actually work, with sociological imagination. - Cross-level and process accounts that treat organizations as embedded social systems. ## Method & evidence bar - The theoretical contribution is the gate: the paper must change how organizational scholars think, not just report a robust effect. - Craft is exceptional — qualitative work shows immersive fieldwork, transparent analysis, and a compelling data-to-theory path; quantitative work shows careful design, identification, and measurement. - Evidence and theory must be tightly integrated; ASQ disfavors a thin theory section bolted onto a competent analysis. - Mechanisms and context are taken seriously; the paper earns its claims through depth, not breadth. ## Structure & house style - The front end develops a theoretical problem with intellectual ambition; the literature is engaged, not surveyed. - Qualitative papers foreground a transparent analytic narrative; quantitative papers foreground design and identification — both subordinate method to theory. - The discussion is substantial: it states the theoretical contribution to organization theory and situates it in the broader sociological conversation. - ASQ prizes elegant, scholarly writing; the book-review section signals its intellectual orientation toward organizations as social institutions. ## 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 "Administrative Science Quarterly submission guidelines / information for authors" and follow the current version. - Re-check word/length limits, abstract format, anonymization for double-blind review, reference style, and any data-transparency expectations. - Re-check current open-science, data-availability, 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 contribution to organization theory — what we now understand about organizations that we did not. - [ ] The execution (qualitative or quantitative) is exceptional and transparent enough to meet ASQ craft standards. - [ ] Theory and evidence are integrated; the finding serves the theory, not the reverse. - [ ] The paper engages the sociology-of-organizations conversation, not just a narrow applied debate. - [ ] Framing, references, and anonymization match the current ASQ guide. ## Common desk-reject triggers - A competent empirical study with a thin or generic theoretical contribution. - Method-led work (a clean effect, a new technique) with no advance in organization theory. - Qualitative work without transparent analysis or a credible data-to-theory path; quantitative work with weak identification or measurement. - A purely applied or managerial-prescription paper with no sociological imagination. ## Re-routing decision - Theory-driven org empirics that are strong but not at ASQ's craft/selectivity bar → `academy-of-management-journal` or `organization-science`. - European process / institutional / discourse / critical organization theory → `organization-studies`; interdisciplinary social science of work → `human-relations`. - Pure conceptual theory, no data → `academy-of-management-review`; integrative review → `academy-of-management-annals`. - Strategy/firm-performance focus → `strategic-management-journal`; broad management empirics → `journal-of-management-en` or `journal-of-management-studies`; entrepreneurship → `journal-of-business-venturing`. ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Administrative Science Quarterly [Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics> [Method/evidence] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check] [Re-route suggestion] ```