Administrative Science Quarterly
Share

Administrative Science Quarterly

2015 Impact Factor: 5.316
2015 Ranking: 6/192 in Management | 4/120 in Business
2016 Release of Journal Citation Reports, Source: 2015 Web of Science Data
Published in Association with Johnson at Cornell University

Editor
Henrich R. Greve INSEAD, Singapore


eISSN: 19303815 | ISSN: 00018392 | Current volume: 62 | Current issue: 2 Frequency: Quarterly
Administrative Science Quarterly, owned and managed by the Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University, has been at the cutting edge of organizational studies since the field began. This top-tier journal regularly publishes the best theoretical and empirical papers based on dissertations and on the evolving and new work of more established scholars, as well as interdisciplinary work in organizational theory, and informative book reviews.

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.

Award-winning papers

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).

Click here to order.

This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

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.

Managing Editor
Linda Johanson Cornell University, USA
Associate Managing Editor
Joan Friedman Cornell University, USA
Associate Editors
Caroline Bartel University of Texas at Austin, USA
Christine Beckman University of Maryland, USA
Mary Benner University of Minnesota, USA
Forrest Briscoe Pennsylvania State University, USA
Mauro F. Guillén University of Pennsylvania, USA
P. Devereaux Jennings University of Alberta, Canada
Christopher Marquis Cornell University, USA
Michael G. Pratt Boston College, USA
Marc-David L. Seidel University of British Columbia, Canada
John Wagner Michigan State University, USA
Book Review Editor
Wesley Sine Cornell University, USA
Editorial Board
Christina L. Ahmadjian Hitotsubashi University, Japan
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, USA
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
Daniel J. Brass University of Kentucky, USA
Joseph Broschak University of Arizona, Tucson, USA
Ethan Burris University of Texas, Austin, USA
M. Diane Burton Cornell University, USA
Rodrigo Canales Yale University, USA
Albert A. Cannella, Jr. Arizona State University
Arijit Chatterjee ESSEC, Singapore
Marlys Christianson University of Toronto, Canada
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
Marta A. Geletkanycz Boston College, USA
Jennifer M. George Rice University, USA
Dennis A. Gioia Pennsylvania State University, USA
Lindred Greer Stanford University, USA
Isin Guler University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 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, United Kingdom
Heather Haveman University of California-Berkeley
Exequiel Hernandez University of Pennsylvania, USA
Shon Hiatt University of Southern California, USA
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 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA
Katherine Kellogg Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA
Mukti Khaire Cornell University, USA
Ji-Yub (Jay) Kim INSEAD, Singapore
Brayden G. King Northwestern University
Katherine Klein University of Pennsylvania, USA
Adam M. Kleinbaum Dartmouth College, USA
Glen E. Kreiner Pennsylvania State University, USA
Brandon Lee Melbourne Business School, Australia
Matthew Lee INSEAD, Singapore
Michael Lounsbury University of Alberta, Canada
Mary-Hunter McDonnell University of Pennsylvania, USA
Jennifer Merluzzi Tulane University, USA
Alexandra Michel University of Pennsylvania, USA
Mark S. Mizruchi University of Michigan
Chad Navis Clemson University, USA
Siobhan O'Mahony Boston University, USA
Donald Palmer University of California, Davis, USA
Jennifer Petriglieri INSEAD, France
Jeffrey Pfeffer Stanford University, USA
Tim Pollock The Pennsylvania State University
Hart Posen University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA
Jo-Ellen Pozner Santa Clara University, USA
Cuili Qian City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Ryan Raffaelli Harvard University, USA
Christopher I. Rider Georgetown University, USA
Kevin Rockmann George Mason University, USA
Amanda Sharkey University of Chicago, USA
Wesley Sine Cornell University, USA
Edward (Ned) Smith Northwestern University, USA
Sameer Srivastava University of California, Berkeley, USA
Maxim Sytch University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA
András Tilcsik University of Toronto, Canada
Paul Tracey University of Cambridge, UK
Linda K. Treviño Pennsylvania State University, USA
Daan van Knippenberg Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
James Wade George Washington University, USA
James D. Westphal University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA
Batia M. Wiesenfeld New York University, USA
Tyler Wry University of Pennsylvania, USA
Lori Qingyuan Yue University of Southern California, USA
Minyuan Zhao University of Pennsylvania, USA
David Zhu Arizona State University, USA
Methods Advisory Panel
Beth Bechky New York University, USA
Peer C. Fiss University of Southern California, USA
Martin Gargiulo INSEAD, Singapore
Christopher I. Rider Georgetown University, USA
  • Academic ASAP
  • Business ASAP - Gale
  • Business ASAP International - Gale
  • Business Source Premier
  • Business and Company Resource Center - Gale
  • Dietrich's Index Philosophicus
  • EBSCO: Business Source Complete
  • EBSCO: Business Source Corporate
  • EBSCO: Business Source Elite
  • EBSCO: SocINDEX
  • Gale: Academic OneFile
  • Gale: Educator's Reference Complete
  • Gale: Expanded Academic ASAP
  • Gale: General OneFile
  • Gale: InfoTrac Custom
  • Gale: Nursing Resource Center
  • General Business File ASAP - Gale
  • General Reference Center Gold - Gale
  • General Reference Centre International
  • InfoTrac Custom Journals (Gale)
  • International Bibliography of Periodical Literature on the Humanities and Social Sciences (IBZ)
  • International Bibliography of the Social Sciences
  • PAIS International
  • ProQuest: CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts
  • PsycFIRST
  • PsycINFO
  • Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science)
  • Social Sciences Index Full Text
  • Social Services Abstracts
  • Sociological Abstracts
  • Student Resource Center College (w/ Academic ASAP)
  • Student Resource Center College (w/ Expanded Academic ASAP)
  • 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. 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 complete avoidance 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.

    Submission Guidelines

    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.

     

     

    Members of the following affiliate societies qualify for a discounted membership: American Psychological Association (APA); American Political Science Association (APSA); American Sociological Association (ASA); British Sociological Association (BSA); Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)

    Click here to order.

    Individual Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)


    Institutional Subscription, E-access


    Institutional Subscription, Print Only


    Institutional Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)


    Individual, Single Print Issue


    Institutional, Single Print Issue