Administrative Science Quarterly Submission Guide
A source-checked ASQ guide for organization-theory fit, data and methods transparency, evidence presentation, overlap disclosure, and submission readiness.
Readiness scan
Find out if this manuscript is ready to submit.
Run the Free Readiness Scan before you submit. Catch the issues editors reject on first read.
Quick answer: Submit to Administrative Science Quarterly when the manuscript changes how scholars understand organizations or organizing and the evidence makes that theoretical move credible. An interesting company, workplace, market, or institutional setting is not enough by itself. The contribution must survive after the setting label is removed.
Use this Administrative Science Quarterly submission guide to test four connected decisions: whether organization theory owns the question, whether the evidence earns the claim, whether the transparency plan is workable, and whether the anonymous upload package follows ASQ's current instructions.
Sage publishes Administrative Science Quarterly for Cornell University's Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management. The journal-specific test below is therefore narrower than a generic management-journal checklist.
ASQ describes its domain broadly, covering the creation, coordination, and transformation of social settings. That breadth raises rather than lowers the contribution bar. The manuscript must turn a phenomenon into a consequential explanation of organizations, not merely report that a familiar relationship appears in a new sample.
Evidence basis: We checked the current ASQ submission guidelines, the journal's linked data-and-methods transparency requirements, and its current ScholarOne route on August 19, 2026. Publisher facts are sourced. The fit tests and decision artifacts below are Manusights editorial judgment applied to those sources.
Source limitation: ASQ's public materials explain scope, preparation, transparency, and submission mechanics, but they do not expose the reasoning behind individual editorial decisions. This guide cannot predict review or acceptance.
From our manuscript review practice
ASQ fit is not created by an organizational setting. The paper needs an organization-theory problem, an evidence path that earns the theoretical move, and a transparency plan suited to the data.
ASQ decision at a glance
Gate | Evidence to inspect | Hold when |
|---|---|---|
Organization-theory ownership | The central question concerns how organizations emerge, coordinate, change, distribute power, or produce consequences | The organization is only a convenient setting for a generic individual-level effect |
Theoretical move | The paper revises an explanation, reveals a mechanism, resolves a contradiction, or disconfirms a meaningful expectation | Novelty rests on a new context, variable, or statistically significant path |
Evidence-to-theory chain | Sampling, measures, observations, analysis, and negative evidence support the claimed mechanism | The most important theoretical sentence depends on evidence the design cannot distinguish |
Transparency plan | The paper states what can be shared, what cannot, why, and how the analysis can still be assessed | Confidentiality is used as a blanket reason to make the reasoning unauditable |
Submission integrity | Length, anonymity, overlap disclosure, conflicts, and files match the current instructions | The cover letter promotes the paper but omits relationships that affect blind review |
Make the theoretical move visible
ASQ invites empirical findings that develop new theoretical accounts and findings that disconfirm theory. Both require more than a surprising coefficient. Write the contribution as a dependency chain:
- Prior explanation: What does organization research currently expect, and under which assumptions?
- Observed tension: What pattern cannot be explained cleanly by that account?
- Mechanism: What process produces the pattern, and what evidence separates it from plausible alternatives?
- Revised understanding: What should scholars now explain, measure, compare, or bound differently?
If the chain breaks between the observation and mechanism, the paper has an empirical result but not yet an ASQ-level theoretical move. If it breaks between the mechanism and revised understanding, the study may be rigorous but too local.
Connect evidence and theory without hiding the seams
ASQ's guidance emphasizes both clear writing and compelling presentation of evidence. The strongest submissions let a reader see where description ends, interpretation begins, and a theoretical inference is earned.
Manuscript component | Reader's question | Useful proof |
|---|---|---|
Phenomenon | Why is this organizationally puzzling rather than merely topical? | A precise contradiction, comparison, or unexplained sequence |
Design | Why can these data expose the proposed process? | Case logic, temporal leverage, identification argument, or observation map |
Analysis | How did records become a finding? | Transparent coding path, model comparisons, robustness checks, or disconfirming cases |
Theory | Why does the finding change an explanation? | A bounded before-and-after claim with observable implications |
Boundary | Where should the explanation fail? | Contextual conditions, counterexamples, and rival mechanisms |
For qualitative work, show how episodes, informants, documents, and negative cases altered the emerging account. For quantitative work, connect constructs and identification choices to the organizational mechanism, not only to statistical convention. Mixed-method designs need an explicit handoff: say what each evidence stream resolves that the other cannot.
Build a realistic transparency plan
ASQ currently requires authors to explain how they will share information about data and methods using practices appropriate to their research. That does not mean every dataset can be posted publicly. Confidential organizations, vulnerable participants, proprietary records, and legal agreements can create legitimate limits.
Prepare a tiered plan before submission:
- Share directly: instruments, code, public-source records, de-identified extracts, coding frameworks, and non-sensitive decision logs.
- Share conditionally: restricted data through an archive, controlled access, a data-use agreement, or a documented replication process.
- Cannot share: identify the exact ethical, contractual, legal, or privacy boundary rather than saying only that data are confidential.
- Preserve auditability: explain which tables, examples, robustness analyses, or procedural records let reviewers evaluate the claim despite the constraint.
A credible plan is specific enough for an editor to understand what will exist before acceptance. Do not promise public disclosure that participant consent or a partner agreement forbids.
Worked example: coordination after a platform change
If the theory-to-evidence chain is difficult to summarize, run a free ASQ readiness scan before polishing the package. Use the result to narrow an overextended claim, not to manufacture a fit argument the study cannot support.
Imagine a study of how employees coordinate after a new collaboration platform is introduced. A weak submission reports that platform use predicts knowledge sharing and adds an established theory to explain the association.
A stronger ASQ paper starts from an organizational tension: the platform makes expertise more visible while changing who can legitimately coordinate work. The design follows episodes before and after the change, compares groups with different authority arrangements, and captures instances where visibility increases conflict rather than coordination. The paper shows that coordination depends on the interaction between expertise visibility and recognized authority, then revises an existing account that treated information access as sufficient.
The technology remains part of the setting, but the contribution concerns how organizations redistribute coordination rights.
Failure patterns to repair before submission
When we read an ASQ-targeted draft, we compare the opening puzzle, theoretical claim, sampling or identification logic, decisive evidence, and discussion opening as one argument. Four breaks are especially costly.
The setting carries the novelty. The paper studies a timely industry or population but does not change an organizational explanation. State the theoretical problem without the proper nouns; if it disappears, rebuild the question.
Theory is attached after analysis. Findings are complete before the theoretical mechanism is introduced. Reorganize the evidence around the mechanism and show which observations changed the initial account.
Transparency is treated as a repository link. A public link cannot compensate for an unclear analytic path, and a confidentiality statement cannot replace one. Make the evidence transformation visible inside the paper.
The contribution expands beyond the design. One organization, period, or institutional arrangement is used to claim a universal process. Name the conditions that enable the mechanism and the observations that would challenge it.
Readiness check
Run the scan against the requirements while they're in front of you.
See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
Prepare the current ASQ package
The current instructions suggest 35 to 45 pages of double-spaced text in 12-point Times New Roman with one-inch margins, plus references, tables, figures, and appendices as needed. ASQ may return an unusually long manuscript for cuts before review. Initial submissions may be uploaded as Word or PDF, while accepted papers require editable files. ASQ currently uses APA style for in-text citations and references.
Prepare a separate title page and remove identifying material from the review manuscript, document properties, filenames, acknowledgments, self-references, and repository links. The current cover-letter guidance prioritizes conflicts, people who have already seen the paper, related submissions or overlapping work, and circumstances that could affect blind review. It explicitly says a paper summary is not useful there.
Submit through the current ASQ ScholarOne portal, then inspect the generated proof rather than assuming the source files converted correctly.
Required package audit
- Anonymous manuscript: remove author identities, acknowledgments, revealing self-citations, repository links, filenames, and document properties.
- Separate title page: supply author and affiliation information outside the review file.
- Cover letter: disclose reviewer conflicts, people who have seen the paper, related work, and circumstances affecting blind review.
- Data availability and methods transparency plan: state the feasible audit route and any ethical, legal, or contractual limits.
- Funding statement and conflicts of interest: make the disclosures consistent across the manuscript and portal.
- Supplementary material: include only material the paper cites and reviewers need to evaluate the claims.
The current instructions suggest 35 to 45 manuscript pages. The author page reviewed for this guide states no separate fixed figure limit for the initial package; figures still need to remain readable and necessary.
Author tracking timeline, without invented turnaround promises
The labels below organize author checks. Only Day 0 is a literal timestamp; Sage does not publish a service-level deadline for each later stage in the guidance reviewed here.
- Day 0: upload through ScholarOne, inspect the converted proof, and save the manuscript ID.
- Day 1 onward: watch for a technical-completeness request and answer only the file or disclosure issue raised.
- Week 1 onward: treat editor communication as a fit or evidence decision, not as a signal about eventual acceptance.
- Later weeks: if external review begins, preserve the submitted files and map every response to the editor's and reviewers' numbered concerns.
When another management journal owns the paper better
Candidate path | Stronger match when | Why ASQ may be wrong | Next check |
|---|---|---|---|
Organization Science | Broad organization theory is stronger than the phenomenon narrative | The empirical story does not carry the theoretical move | Compare the Organization Science guide |
Academy of Management Journal | The empirical management contribution has broader reach | The paper lacks a sufficiently distinctive ASQ argument | Compare the AMJ guide |
Strategic Management Journal | Strategy, competitive advantage, or performance owns the question | The central mechanism is strategic rather than organizational | Reframe the owner query before choosing the journal |
Final ASQ checklist
- Name the organization-theory problem in one sentence.
- State the prior explanation, observed tension, mechanism, and revised understanding.
- Match the evidence design to the mechanism rather than to a preferred method.
- Show negative, rival, or boundary evidence where the claim could fail.
- Write a truthful data and methods transparency plan.
- Keep the main text within the journal's current suggested range or justify the exception.
- Remove identities from the review file and its metadata.
- Disclose overlap and reviewer conflicts in the cover letter without turning it into promotional copy.
- Recheck the current instructions and inspect the converted submission proof.
Common questions
These answers resolve practical ASQ preparation questions, but the live Sage instructions and ScholarOne route remain authoritative whenever a requirement or portal field changes.
How long should an ASQ submission be?
ASQ currently suggests 35 to 45 pages of double-spaced text, excluding references, tables, figures, and appendices. Very long manuscripts may be returned for shortening before review. Verify the live page before upload.
What should go in an ASQ cover letter?
Use it to disclose people who have seen the paper, potential reviewer conflicts, relationships to prior or concurrent work, and other facts affecting blind review. The current instructions say a manuscript summary in the cover letter is not useful.
Does ASQ require a data and methods transparency plan?
Yes. Authors currently explain how they will share appropriate information about data and methods, and the agreed plan must be implemented before acceptance.
Where are ASQ manuscripts submitted?
ASQ currently directs manuscripts to ScholarOne. Enter through the live Sage author instructions, then recheck the selected article type, required declarations, and uploaded-file anonymity immediately before submission.
What to read next
Compare the Organization Science submission guide, Human Relations submission guide, Organizational Research Methods submission guide, and Academy of Management Journal submission guide. Browse the journal guide library for another owner, or use a free manuscript readiness scan to test the theory, evidence, and package as one chain.
Official sources accessed 2026-08-19.
- ASQ submission guidelines, Sage.
- Administrative Science Quarterly, Sage.
- ASQ ScholarOne submission site, Clarivate.
Submit If
Submit when the organization-theory move is consequential, the evidence exposes the proposed process, and the transparency and review package make the reasoning assessable.
Think Twice If
- The abstract is about people or technology inside an organization, but the explanation is not organizational.
- A new context, dataset, or methods section is doing the work of theoretical contribution.
- The key mechanism appears only in the discussion and was not examined in the design.
- The paper promises broad generality while hiding the conditions that create the finding.
- Confidentiality prevents both data sharing and any credible alternative audit path.
Frequently asked questions
ASQ currently suggests 35 to 45 pages of double-spaced text, excluding references, tables, figures, and appendices. Editors may return an unusually long manuscript for shortening before review, so verify the current author page before upload.
The current instructions ask authors to identify people who have seen the paper, potential reviewer conflicts, overlap with related work, and other circumstances affecting blind review. They say a paper summary in the cover letter is not useful.
Yes. The current instructions say submitting authors must explain how they will share information about data and methods in a way appropriate to their research and must implement the agreed plan before acceptance.
ASQ currently directs manuscripts to its ScholarOne site. Recheck the live Sage instructions and portal immediately before uploading.
Before you upload
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Move from this article into the next decision-support step. The scan works best once the journal and submission plan are clearer.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Your manuscript is never used to train any model.