Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewer Guidelines for the AOM Annual Meeting
The quality of the Academy of Management (AOM) Annual Meeting program depends on thoughtful, constructive feedback provided by reviewers. These reviewer guidelines are designed to support your participation and ensure consistency across the Divisions and Interest Groups (DIGs), as well as the Teaching and Learning Conference.
We welcome both returning reviewers and those new to the process. The Reviewer Center opens in early December.
Please note: The use of artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools is not permitted in the review process.
Setting the Tone of the Review
Reviewers are encouraged to offer constructive, respectful, and developmental feedback. Even when identifying unresolvable issues, aim to provide authors with suggestions for improving their research. Strong reviews also highlight the manuscript’s strengths and offer specific, actionable guidance.
Remember that each review represents both your DIG and the Academy of Management. Openness to diverse theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches is essential, given the interdisciplinary nature of AOM’s global membership. Reviews should focus on intellectual rigor, potential contribution, and the ability to stimulate scholarly dialogue.
Review Format and Expectations
- Submit your review by the deadline; the Annual Meeting schedule does not allow extensions.
- Structure your feedback clearly—numbered comments are recommended.
- Refer to specific pages, tables, or figures where appropriate.
- Do not include identifying information or attempt to uncover authors’ identities. Double-blind (papers) and single-blind (symposia) processes must be preserved.
- A strong review is typically one single-spaced page.
Review Format and Expectations
- Submit your review by the deadline; the Annual Meeting schedule does not allow extensions.
- Structure your feedback clearly—numbered comments are recommended.
- Refer to specific pages, tables, or figures where appropriate.
- Do not include identifying information or attempt to uncover authors’ identities. Double-blind (papers) and single-blind (symposia) processes must be preserved.
- A strong review is typically one single-spaced page.
General Areas for Reviewers to Address
In all reviews, consider the submission’s:
- Theoretical development
- Methodological rigor (if empirical)
- Conceptual clarity
- Contribution to the field
- Practical relevance
Submissions should meet the “so what?” threshold and offer meaningful implications for both scholarly and practice communities.
Symposium-Specific Evaluation Criteria
When reviewing symposium proposals, consider:
- Is the session likely to meet audience expectations for quality?
- Will it appeal to a broad segment of the DIG and AOM membership?
- Does it offer innovation, relevance, and clear value?
Reviewer Evaluation Criteria by Section
- Is the topic relevant to management and organizational scholarship?
- Is the research question clearly stated and well-motivated?
- Does it extend an existing theoretical conversation?
Acknowledgements
These guidelines were originally adapted from the Organizational Behavior (OB) Division Reviewer Guidelines which were themselves adapted from reviewer guidelines developed by Catherine Daily and Albert A. Cannella Jr. for the Strategic Management (STR) Division, formerly known as the Business Policy and Strategy (BPS) Division, and for use in an STR Professional Development Workshop on reviewing sponsored by the Academy of Management Review (AMR) and the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ). Don Bergh, Javier Gimeno, Bruce Avolio, and David Ketchen also contributed to the revision of these guidelines.
Further enhancements to these guidelines were provided by the Organization and Management Theory (OMT) Division in view of expanding their applicability to encompass quantitative, qualitative, and conceptual papers. Tammar Zilber, Renate Meyer, Silviya Svejenova, Joep Cornelissen, Martin Kilduff, Markus Höllerer, David Seidl, Marc-David Seidel, Forrest Briscoe, and Eva Boxenbaum contributed to this revision.
We would like to thank the STR, OB, and OMT Divisions for their willingness to share these reviewer guidelines for the benefit of everyone.