At the cutting edge since the field began, ASQ is the source of:
The best theoretical and empirical work in organization studies
ASQ regularly publishes the best theoretical and empirical papers based on dissertations and on the evolving and new work of more established scholars. Look to ASQ for new work from young scholars with fresh views, opening new areas of inquiry, and from more seasoned scholars deepening earlier work and staking out new terrain.
Interdisciplinary work in organization theory
ASQ publishes the best organizational theory papers from a number of disciplines, including organizational behavior and theory, sociology, psychology and social psychology, strategic management, economics, public administration, and industrial relations. Look to ASQ for work that transcends the bounds of particular disciplines to speak to a broad audience.
A range of perspectives and styles
ASQ publishes qualitative papers as well as quantitative work and purely theoretical papers. Beginning with a special issue on qualitative research in 1979, ASQ set the standard for excellence in qualitative research. Theoretical perspectives and topics in ASQ span the range from micro to macro, from lab experiments in psychology to work on nation-states. Look to ASQ for breadth and diversity.
Many papers published in ASQ over the years have won awards as the best paper in their area. A number of them have been awarded the Best Paper Award from the Academy of Management's Organizational Behavior Division which is given each year for the most significant contribution to the field of organizational behavior. Look to ASQ for high-quality research that expands your thinking on organizational issues.
Informative book reviews
ASQ publishes thoughtful reviews of books important to the field, giving readers enough information about each book and its contribution so that they can judge for themselves whether the book will be helpful. In addition, in each issue a list of publications received alerts readers to the release of new books on organization studies and business management. Look to ASQ for new book information.
Members of the following affiliate societies qualify for a discounted subscription: American Psychological Association (APA); American Political Science Association (APSA); American Sociological Association (ASA); British Sociological Association (BSA).
The ASQ logo reads, "Dedicated to advancing the understanding of administration through empirical investigation and theoretical analysis." We interpret "administration" in the broadest possible sense to include all of the processes involved in creating, coordinating, and transforming the social settings in which it occurs. ASQ seeks to advance the understanding of management, organizations, and organizing in a wide variety of contexts, including teams, business and nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and markets. Contributions to this enterprise can include the discovery and analysis of new phenomena, new theoretical accounts informed by empirical analysis, or the disconfirmation of existing theory.
|Linda Johanson||Cornell University, USA|
|Joan Friedman||Cornell University, USA|
|Christina L. Ahmadjian||Hitotsubashi University, Japan|
|Caroline Bartel||University of Texas at Austin, USA|
|Christine Beckman||University of Southern California, USA|
|Mary Benner||University of Minnesota, USA|
|Forrest Briscoe||Pennsylvania State University, USA|
|Christopher Marquis||Cornell University, USA|
|Michael G. Pratt||Boston College, USA|
|Christopher I. Rider||Georgetown University, USA|
|Marc-David L. Seidel||University of British Columbia, Canada|
|Maxim Sytch||University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA|
|John Wagner||Michigan State University, USA|
|Wesley Sine||Cornell University, USA|
|Ramon J. Aldag||University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA|
|John Almandoz||University of Navarra, Spain|
|Michel Anteby||Boston University, USA|
|Blake Ashforth||Arizona State University, USA|
|Pino Audia||Dartmouth College, USA|
|Beth Bechky||New York University|
|Yerodin Bermiss||University of Texas at Austin|
|Marya Besharov||Cornell University, USA|
|Emily C. Bianchi||Emory University, USA|
|Emily S. Block||University of Alberta, Canada|
|Matthew Bothner||European School of Management and Technology, Germany|
|Anne Bowers||University of Toronto, Canada|
|Raina Brands||London Business School, UK|
|Joseph Broschak||University of Arizona, Tucson, USA|
|M. Diane Burton||Cornell University, USA|
|Rodrigo Canales||Yale University, USA|
|Albert A. Cannella, Jr.||Texas A&M University, USA|
|Seth Carnahan||Washington University in St. Louis, USA|
|Arijit Chatterjee||ESSEC, Singapore|
|Marlys Christianson||University of Toronto, Canada|
|Johan Chu||The University of Chicago, USA|
|J. Adam Cobb||University of Texas at Austin, USA|
|Lisa Cohen||McGill University, Canada|
|Jason A. Colquitt||The University of Georgia, USA|
|Stéphane Côté||University of Toronto, Canada|
|Thomas D'Aunno||New York University, USA|
|Erik Dane||Rice University, USA|
|John Dencker||Northeastern University, USA|
|Nancy DiTomaso||Rutgers University, USA|
|Glen Dowell||Cornell University, USA|
|J. P. Eggers||New York University, USA|
|Isabel Fernandez-Mateo||London Business School, UK|
|Martin Gargiulo||INSEAD, Singapore|
|Joel Gehman||University of Alberta, Canada|
|Marta A. Geletkanycz||Boston College, USA|
|Dennis A. Gioia||Pennsylvania State University, USA|
|Lindred Greer||Stanford University, USA|
|Matthew Grimes||Indiana University Bloomington, USA|
|Abhinav Gupta||University of Washington, USA|
|Benjamin L. Hallen||University of Washington, USA|
|Donald C. Hambrick||Pennsylvania State University, USA|
|Sarah Harvey||University College London, UK|
|Exequiel Hernandez||University of Pennsylvania, USA|
|Shon Hiatt||University of Southern California, USA|
|Ivona Hideg||Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada|
|Jennifer Howard-Grenville||University of Cambridge|
|Zhi Huang||University of Kentucky, USA|
|Michael Jensen||University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA|
|Stefan Jonsson||Uppsala University, Sweden|
|John Joseph||University of California, Irvine, USA|
|Aleksandra Kacperczyk||London Business School, UK|
|Katherine Kellogg||Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA|
|Mukti Khaire||Cornell University, USA|
|Gavin Kilduff||New York University, USA|
|Ji-Yub (Jay) Kim||INSEAD, Singapore|
|Adam M. Kleinbaum||Dartmouth College, USA|
|Rajiv Kozhikode||Simon Fraser University, Canada|
|Glen E. Kreiner||Pennsylvania State University, USA|
|Ann Langley||HEC Montreal, Canada|
|Brandon Lee||Melbourne Business School, Australia|
|Matthew Lee||INSEAD, Singapore|
|Hila Lifshitz-Assaf||New York University, USA|
|Michael Lounsbury||University of Alberta, Canada|
|Mary-Hunter McDonnell||University of Pennsylvania, USA|
|Jennifer Merluzzi||George Washington University, USA|
|Alexandra Michel||University of Pennsylvania, USA|
|Mark S. Mizruchi||University of Michigan|
|Chad Navis||Clemson University, USA|
|Emily Pahnke||University of Washington, USA|
|Donald Palmer||University of California, Davis, USA|
|Jennifer Petriglieri||INSEAD, France|
|Jeffrey Pfeffer||Stanford University, USA|
|Timothy G. Pollock||University of Tennessee-Knoxville, USA|
|Hart Posen||University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA|
|Cuili Qian||University of Texas at Dallas, USA|
|Ryan Raffaelli||Harvard University, USA|
|Mia Raynard||WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria|
|Trish Reay||University of Alberta, Canada|
|Kevin Rockmann||George Mason University|
|Jeffrey Sanchez-Burks||The University of Michigan, USA|
|Brent Scott||Michigan State University|
|Amanda Sharkey||University of Chicago, USA|
|Wesley Sine||Cornell University, USA|
|Edward (Ned) Smith||Northwestern University, USA|
|Sameer Srivastava||University of California-Berkeley|
|András Tilcsik||University of Toronto, Canada|
|Daan L. van Knippenberg||Drexel University, USA|
|James Wade||George Washington University, USA|
|Danqing Wang||University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong|
|James D. Westphal||University of Michigan, United States|
|Batia M. Wiesenfeld||New York University, USA|
|Tyler Wry||University of Pennsylvania, USA|
|Lori Qingyuan Yue||University of Southern California, USA|
|Pavel Zhelyazkov||Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, China|
|David Zhu||Arizona State University, USA|
ASQ Invitation to Contributors
The ASQ logo reads, "Dedicated to advancing the understanding of administration through empirical investigation and theoretical analysis." The editors interpret that statement to entail three criteria that affect editorial decisions. About any manuscript they ask: does this research (1) advance our understanding of organizing in contexts such as teams, enterprises, or markets; (2) develop a new theoretical account or empirical findings about organizing that challenge previous understandings; (3) address a significant and challenging problem of management? Theory is how we move to further research and improved practice, but new empirical findings that disconfirm theory are also valuable. If manuscripts contain no theoretical foundation, their value is suspect.
ASQ asks, "What's interesting here?" But we take pains not to confuse interesting work with work that contains mere novelties, clever turns of phrase, or other substitutes for insight. Instead, we try to identify counterintuitive work that disconfirms prevailing assumptions and established research. Building a coherent, cumulative body of knowledge typically involves research that offers new syntheses or themes, identifies new patterns or causal sequences, or generates new propositions. Interesting work accelerates the development of new theory or new practices.
People submitting manuscripts should clearly articulate what we learn from such endeavors that we did not know before. Some topics in organizational studies have become stagnant, repetitious, and closed. Research in mature fields that does not identify and attempt to correct a serious problem in previously published research is unlikely to advance understanding.
We attach no priorities to subjects for study, nor do we attach greater significance to one methodological style than another. We are receptive to multiple forms of grounding but not to a lack of theoretical grounding. Consequently, we are open to work based on qualitative or quantitative data collected from archives, the laboratory, or the field, as well as simulations and formal models.
For these reasons, we view all our papers as high-quality contributions to the literature and present them as equals to our readers. The first paper in each issue is not viewed by the editors as the best of those appearing in the issue. Our readers will decide for themselves which of the papers are exceptionally valuable.
We refrain from listing topics in which we are interested. ASQ should seek to publish articles on new topics that have not previously appeared in the journal. Authors should look at what ASQ has published over the last 10 years and, if there is even a glimmer of precedent, submit the work to ASQ. Manuscripts that are inappropriate will be returned promptly.
We are interested in compact presentations of theory and research, suspecting that very long manuscripts contain an unclear line of argument, multiple arguments, or no argument at all. Each manuscript should contain one key point, which the author should be able to state in one sentence. Digressions from one key point commonly occur when authors cite more literature than is necessary to frame and justify an argument.
We are interested in good writing and see poor writing as a reason to reject manuscripts. We're looking for manuscripts that are well argued and well written. By well argued we mean that the argument is clear and logical; by well written we mean that the argument is accessible and well phrased. Clear writing is not an adornment but a reflection of clear thinking.
A problem common to rejected manuscripts is that authors are unable to evaluate their own work critically and seem to have made insufficient use of colleagues before the work is submitted. Obtaining and responding to comments from trusted colleagues before submitting a manuscript helps authors anticipate reviewers' reactions and will increase the probability of a favorable review.
Presentation of Evidence
Our goal is to publish the best and potentially most impactful research in the field of organizations. We encourage a spirit of curiosity, engagement, and rigor in those submitting to ASQ and welcome submissions using a wide diversity of epistemological, theoretical, methodological, and empirical approaches to the study of organizations and organizing. Because strong papers written in an author’s own style and voice have the best chance of making a contribution, ASQ offers authors significant freedom in how to present evidence so that papers can be tailored to fit authors’ theories, methods, and empirical contexts. The inductive qualitative papers published in ASQ already provide good examples of how authors can use that greater freedom in deciding how to present their evidence compellingly and make novel contributions to theory. We encourage authors of quantitative work to use that same freedom to draw on examples of how evidence is presented in the best papers in neighboring disciplines, or even in the natural sciences, when doing so can help them clarify their message and produce a stronger contribution.
A variety of evidence components and additional analyses (not simply alternative statistical models) may be useful to authors, for example, graphing the distribution of the outcome authors are explaining or the distribution of the main independent variables and how they covary with the outcome; mapping outcomes that occur across space or time if the explanatory variables are also spatial or unfold or change over time; or showing distributions of key variables if they differ from the usual (normal) distributions and are substantively interesting. There are now many novel ways of displaying data graphically that convey much information in a compact space. Authors could also examine whether new insights can be gained from using alternative variables for the main constructs or analyzing subsamples to provide useful comparisons or refined hypotheses.
We respect that it is part of a researcher’s craft to draw from the full line of evidence components available. The presentation of evidence should follow the authors’ vision of how to best present the theoretical and empirical contribution, selecting the components that make the paper easiest to understand and most compelling for readers. The reviewers and editor can help authors refine presentations of evidence to showcase the contribution, and sometimes make suggestions on how papers can be improved through adding displays of evidence, while staying true to the authors’ voice and intentions. We welcome submissions from authors who think seriously about how best to present their contribution. When manuscripts that break the established patterns and present the most compelling additional evidence become more frequent among our submissions, our reviewers and editors will have one more dimension of quality to use in selecting papers for publication.
Submit manuscripts in Word format to the online ScholarOne submission system at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/asq.
Please view the detailed Submission Guidelines page here.