Thank you for your interest in submitting a proposal for the 78th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management. The submission deadline was January 9, 2018 at 5:00 PM ET and the submission system is now CLOSED. We still hope to benefit from your participation at this year's Annual Meeting, and we invite you to sign up as a reviewer.
Visit the Reviewer Sign-Up System to create a user account or log in and choose your areas of expertise. Be sure to check out the reviewer guidelines and resources for additional information. The sign up process takes less than 10 minutes, and allows you to select two Divisions or Interest Groups and review no more than three (3) assignments per division. The sign-up period is happening now, and the review period is January 17-February 15.
To attend the Annual Meeting
conference a program participant must be an AOM member
and must be registered for the conference.
Program participants are highly encouraged to personally present
- All PDW participants listed on a submission must be available
to participate from Friday through Saturday.
- All participants on submitted papers, symposia, and caucuses
must be available to participate from Sunday through Tuesday.
- All participants on submitted AAT PDWs and symposia must be
available to participate on Sunday.
The Rule of One
PDW Proposals can be submitted to only ONE Division,
Interest Group, or Committee. It is recommended that you contact
the preferred sponsoring division, interest group, or committee to
discuss your proposal prior to submitting. During the submission
process you will have the opportunity to suggest other divisions,
interest groups, and committees that would also be interested in the proposal.
The Rule of One for Papers
"A paper can only be submitted to one division or interest
group." This long-standing Academy rule is similar to the requirements of most journals.
The Rule of Three
"No one may submit to or be associated with more than three (3)
Professional Development Workshop (PDW) submissions to an Academy
Meeting. No one may or appear on more than three (3) PDW sessions
during the PDW Program from Friday to Sunday, regardless of whether
the sessions are held on-site or off-site."
PDW Program appearances include all
roles that are listed on the PDW program such as chairs,
organizers, special guests, speakers, presenters, co-authors, and
The Rule of Three
"No one may submit to or be associated with more than
three scholarly submissions (papers and/or symposia) to an Academy
Meeting. No one may appear on more than three sessions during the
refereed scholarly program from Sunday to Tuesday.
Scholarly Program appearances
include all roles that are listed on the scholarly program such as
chairs, organizers, special guests, discussants, speakers,
presenters, co-authors, and so on.
The Rule of Three + Three (no more
than three scholarly submissions + three workshop submissions)
serves as a means to ensure broad participation of members. It
reduces the likelihood of the program being dominated by a small
handful of people, and it helps ensure that no one is committed to
appear at more than one place at a time. When people make too many
commitments to participate in the conference program, scheduling
conflicts often arise. As a consequence, participants may find it
difficult to honor their commitments, and the program and the
experiences of the attendees will suffer as a result. People who
agree to participate in an all-day consortium, for example, are
expected to participate for the entire day. They should not leave
after an hour to attend another session. No presenter should
have to arrive late to one session or leave early to present in
another one. Organizers, other participants, and especially the
attendees are all frustrated by such behavior. The Rule of Three +
Three helps reduce these problems. Participants are better able to
fully honor their commitments, and attendees can attend events
knowing that the featured speakers will actually be there
throughout the event.
How is the Rule of Three + Three enforced?
The PDW and scholarly program submission system will automatically
block submissions that violate the rule. The system will inform the
submitter of the rule violation and indicate which participant has
already been associated with three other submissions. The submitter
will have to revise the proposal by removing the violation. The
proposal can be revised and resubmitted by the deadline without
penalty. A person who agrees to be listed on more than three PDW
proposals or three scholarly submissions puts all of those
submissions at risk of being dropped from the program. Therefore,
it is in the interest of submitters to ensure that everyone
understands and follows the rule. Clearly, the implications
of including a violator of the Rule of Three + Three on a
submission are far-reaching.
NOTE: It is the responsibility of each participant to
understand and follow the Rule of Three + Three. If you have
committed to participate in three workshops and three scholarly
submissions, you should decline further requests.
The following are exempt from
the Rule of Three + Three:
- Academy, Division, Interest Group, and Committee Officer Roles.
(Note: AOM Program Chairs may not be listed as an author for
proposals submitted to the division in which they serve as
- Academy and Division General Sessions (Meetings, Social Events,
- AOM publication editors (current and incoming editors-in-chief)
when participating in sessions devoted exclusively to publishing
and other AOM journal activities.
- Caucus organizers (maximum of two organizers per caucus are
- Presenters in the Teaching and Learning Conference.
- Submissions to the Teaching and Learning Conference are exempt
from the Rule of Three + Three.
Clarifications for the Rule of
- If a person appears in more than one role in a single session
(e.g., chair and speaker), it counts as one for purposes of the
Rule of Three + Three.
AOM Code of Ethics
Members should notify appropriate
division chairs or committees regarding the practices or actions of
members they believe may violate Academy policies, rules, or
general standards of
ethical conduct. Standards of conduct that are particularly
relevant to participation in the annual conference are summarized
below. More information about the AOM's professional norms on
conference presentations can also be found on the Ethics
Video Series on YouTube channel.
- Participation. To encourage meaningful
exchange, Academy members should foster a climate of free
interchange and constructive criticism within the Academy and be
willing to share research findings and insights fully with other
- Original Work and New Work. At the time
of submission, submitted papers must not have been previously
presented or scheduled for presentation at the AOM. Submitted
papers must not have been published or accepted for publication. If
a paper is under review, it must NOT appear in print before the
- Attendance and Commitments. ALL program
participants must be AOM members AND registered (separate costs)
for the conference in order to attend. The Academy is a voluntary
association whose existence and operations are dependent on
cooperation, involvement, and leadership from its members. Members
should honor all professional commitments, including presentation
of accepted papers and participation in scheduled roles, such as
chair, discussant, or panelist. Program participants are highly
encouraged to personally present their submission. If absence from
a scheduled meeting is unavoidable, members must contact
appropriate individuals and pursue suitable alternative
arrangements. Leaders have the same responsibilities and should
perform their obligations and responsibilities in a timely,
diligent, and sensitive manner, without regard to friendships or
- Rigorous Scholarship. It is the duty of
Academy members conducting research to design, implement, analyze,
report, and present their findings rigorously. Research rigor
includes careful design, execution, analysis, interpretation of
results, and retention of data. Presentation of research should
include treatment of the data that is honest and that reveals both
strengths and weaknesses of findings.
Authorship and credit should be
shared in correct proportion to the various parties' contributions.
Whether published or not, ideas or concepts derived from others
should be acknowledged, as should advice and assistance received.
Authors should also guard against plagiarizing the work of others.
Plagiarism is defined as:
The failure to give sufficient
attribution to the words, ideas, or data of others that have been
incorporated into a work, which an author submits for academic
credit or other benefit. Attribution is sufficient if it adequately
informs and, therefore, does not materially mislead a reasonable
reader as to the source of the words, ideas, or data. Attribution
(or the lack thereof) is materially misleading if it could cause a
reasonable reader to be mistaken as to the source of the words,
ideas, or data in a way that could benefit the author submitting
the work. (Worthen, 2004: 444. Italic for emphasis added).