Rejected from Academy of Management Review? The 7 Best Journals to Submit Next

Management does not run a portfolio transfer service. There is no formal pipeline that moves your manuscript from AMR to AMJ, Organization Science, or ASQ with its referee reports attached, because these journals belong to separate associations and presses. You resubmit each one as a fresh submission and start each clock over. Plan the ladder before you start, because every rung costs months.

The whole ladder forks at one question, and you must answer it before you pick a rung:

Is the paper actually empirical? If it reports original data (a survey, an experiment, a qualitative case, an archival analysis), AMR rejected it for scope, not for quality. The fix is not to revise the theory; it is to move to a journal that publishes data. AMJ is the sibling step, with the same theory-vs-empirical split inverted. Organization Science, Journal of Management, and Journal of Management Studies all take empirical work too.

The substance of the paper may be fine exactly as written, with only the contribution framing reaimed at the new journal's audience.

Is the paper genuinely theory, but the contribution read as thin? Then this is a substance signal, not a fit signal, and resubmitting unchanged to ASQ, JMS, Organization Studies, or the Journal of Management Conceptual track will draw the same objection from the same small pool of theory reviewers. Sharpen the theoretical move first: state the failed explanation, the new mechanism, and the testable propositions explicitly before the next journal sees the paper.

A realistic theory-paper ladder looks like this:

• First tier (theory home): Administrative Science Quarterly or Journal of Management Studies for broad organization theory; the Journal of Management Conceptual track for a slightly higher-odds conceptual venue.

• Specialist tier: Strategic Management Journal for strategy theory; Organization Studies for European or critical-tradition theory.

• Cross-association tier: Organization Science, which takes both theory and empirical work, as a flexible target when the contribution is real but did not clear AMR's flagship bar.

If the paper is empirical, the ladder is shorter and clearer: AMJ first, then Organization Science, Journal of Management, or Journal of Management Studies, reframing the contribution for each audience.

In our pre-submission review work with Academy of Management Review submissions, four patterns generate the most consistent rejections, and each one points to a different next step. Knowing which one applies to your paper is the difference between a productive resubmission and a second rejection from the same root cause.

The paper is empirical, not theory. This is the single most common and fastest desk-rejection accelerant at AMR, and it is purely a scope call. AMR publishes conceptual theory development; it routes original empirical results out no matter how strong the work is. Across our AMR pre-submission reviews, the recurring version is a manuscript whose methods section reports a study, a sample, or a dataset, dressed in conceptual language in the introduction.

When that is the issue, the paper has not failed; it is simply at the wrong AOM journal. Move it to the Academy of Management Journal, where the same data is the asset rather than the disqualifier, and reframe only the contribution section.

The theoretical contribution is a relabeling, not a new conceptual claim. AMR's bar is a contribution that develops new, testable theory, not a summary or reorganization of existing frameworks. We repeatedly see manuscripts where the abstract promises a new theory but the propositions, on inspection, restate a known relationship under a new construct name.

This is a substance problem, not a fit problem: moving the paper to ASQ or Journal of Management Studies without sharpening the theoretical move simply moves the same objection to a new set of theory reviewers. Make the conceptual mechanism that existing theory cannot explain explicit before you resubmit anywhere.

The propositions are asserted, not derived. AMR reviewers scrutinize whether each proposition follows from a clear chain of theoretical reasoning, and whether the boundary conditions are specified. A recurring pattern in the manuscripts we review is a set of propositions presented as conclusions without the logical derivation that connects them to the paper's core construct, and with no stated boundary conditions for when the theory holds.

When the propositions are plausible but unsupported by the argument, the paper often reads as a strong fit for Organization Science or Organization Studies once the derivation and boundary conditions are surfaced in the main text.

The contribution is to a sub-field, not to management broadly. AMR's editorial bar is a contribution to management and organizations as a field, and the theoretical move has to travel across management audiences. We see papers whose construct clarity and reasoning are sound but whose payoff lands only within one narrow literature, such as a single HR or marketing-theory conversation. That is a fit gap, not a quality gap.

A genuinely strong strategy theory paper of this kind often belongs at Strategic Management Journal, where specialist editors value the focused contribution that AMR's broad-management bar rejected.

Across these patterns, the operative distinction is scope versus substance. A scope rejection (empirical, or sub-field-only) means the work is sound but aimed wrong, and you move it to a better-fit journal. A substance rejection in the theoretical contribution, the propositions, or the construct means the next journal will reject for the same reason unless you do the work first.

Don't just resubmit the paper down the ladder. The most expensive mistake after an AMR rejection is treating a substance rejection as a fit problem and resubmitting unchanged when the paper needs real theoretical work. If reviewers questioned your theoretical contribution, your propositions, or your construct clarity, the next set of theory reviewers will see the same gaps, and in management the reviewer pool for a given conceptual area is small enough that you may draw the same people.

Be honest about which rejection you got, because the two are opposites. A fast desk rejection on scope grounds is almost always a fit signal: the paper is empirical, or the contribution lands only in one sub-field, and the paper itself may be fine. A rejection that engages the theory and finds the contribution incremental is a substance message, and the reviewer comments are the most valuable feedback your paper will get for free.

Ignoring them to chase a faster resubmission wastes them. Read them as a roadmap, not a verdict.

An appeal is rarely the answer. At top management journals, appeals succeed only when you can show the handling editor misread a central argument, and a scope-based desk rejection is almost never reversible. Your time is better spent on the next submission than on contesting this one.

One boundary to keep in mind as you compare targets: the selectivity and review-time figures here are based on public author guidelines and journal-reported ranges, not on inside knowledge of any single editor's desk, so treat them as planning ranges rather than guarantees. The acceptance percentages in particular are official-source estimates that move year to year.