Skip to main content
Instructions for contributors
MOR logo for call for proposals

Download the Management and Organizational Review Instructions for contributors here: Download Instruction for Contributors in PDF. (176.294 KB)

To view the PDF file linked above, you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader.


Management and Organization Review (MOR) aims to be the premier journal for advancing our knowledge of management and organizations in China and other transforming economies. It is a multidisciplinary journal rooted in the behavioral and social sciences underlying management research, broadly defined. MOR seeks to publish research from diverse social science disciplines, such as organization behavior, organization theory, strategic management, economics, economic geography, development studies, innovation theories, anthropology, political science, public administration, urban planning, cross-cultural and social psychology, international business, sociology, cognitive science, and institutional theory.

MOR aspires to attract papers that challenge themselves not only to be methodologically sound but substantively contributing to our understanding of phenomena that are new to the literature and relevant to China or transforming economies. Papers published in MOR can focus on all types of organizations, such as firms, academic, educational, and cultural institutions, not for profits, NGOs, governmental organizations, and State Owned Enterprises.

MOR has an inclusive disciplinary and methodological philosophy and welcomes research at all levels of analysis, such as individual, group, organization, industry, institution, economic systems, international business, and societal cultural studies. MOR Editors are especially interested in attracting and publishing forward-looking papers that break new ground, rather than papers that make incremental contributions, as well as papers that elucidate indigenous management theories. MOR is open to diverse and rigorously executed research methodologies, including qualitative research, surveys, archival and historical analyses, content analysis, laboratory experiments, simulations, and computational methods, as well as papers that synthesize or translate theories and empirical research that make research accessible to scholars outside of disciplinary sub-fields.

The Editors recognize that important new insights are often discovered at the intersection of established theories, research methods, and specific research questions. When considering papers submitted to MOR, the Editors consider these questions: Does it fall within the domain of MOR? Does it offer fresh insights? Does the empirical analysis and methods satisfy falsifiability, data transparency, and replication criteria? And does the evidence or logic substantiate the conclusions?

To enrich scholarly discourse and promote theoretical innovation, MOR will occasionally publish ‘Perspective’ papers that direct attention to new important phenomenon or that redirect or shut down a line of research. Perspective papers will be reviewed in the same way as all other papers published in MOR. All accepted Perspective papers are followed by two or three invited commentaries. In addition, the ‘Dialogue, Debate, and Discussion’ editorial area of MOR is intended to break ground for the future, revisit past debates, and capture and highlight important current issues in management and globalization. It features essays and interviews designed to stimulate and engage vibrant Dialogue, Debate, and Discussion in the scholarly community.


The purpose of the review policies is to ensure that empirical research published in MOR satisfies falsifiability, data transparency, and replication criteria. For a comprehensive discussion of these goals please refer to Lewin et al. (2016).

  1. 1. Hypothesis testing is not prerequisite. MOR welcomes papers that avoid framing research in the guise of hypothesis testing. MOR encourages and will consider exploratory research, meant to identify and describe phenomena. However, hypotheses testing are appropriate in studies involving confirmatory research, or replications meant to test hypotheses generated from theory or reported in prior research.

  2. 2. The context of all papers published in MOR must be that of transforming economies, such as in Africa, Asia (China, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc.), India, Latin America, Russia and Ex-Soviet Republics, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East. MOR welcomes comparative studies where comparison to non-transforming economies is done to highlight unique aspects of transforming economies.

  3. 3. Any empirical study must motivate a research question by framing it within the extant literature, discuss the plan for investigating it, and describe the data for the study. All statistical analyses must present and discuss all findings, positive, negative, or null.

  4. 4. MOR requires authors to report coefficient estimates alongside exact p-values or standard errors. When reporting statistical findings, authors should not report or refer to arbitrary cutoff points for statistical significance (p-values). Not all statistical effects are meaningful or important. However, in summary tables authors may include asterisks to visually indicate significance levels. Authors are expected to provide readers with a reasonable sense of how strongly an independent variable affects the dependent variable. Reviewers and editors may also require authors to discuss alternative theoretical explanations, which may be analyzed post hoc using the same data or new data. Further, authors must report and discuss null and negative findings. Complete and comprehensive reporting and discussion of findings including competing or alternative theoretical explanations is the basis for advancing understanding and knowledge creation.

  5. 5. Post hoc analysis is implicit if labeled as such. Hypothesizing after the results are known is an unacceptable practice. However, when justified appropriately, a post hoc analysis may be acceptable, including hypothesis testing that explores relationships that were not originally considered but which emerge from new insights during the analysis (e.g., because of unexpected null results, negative findings, or analysis of outlier data points). Post hoc analyses must be clearly identified and discussed as a separate section of presenting and discussing findings.

  6. 6. Access to data may be required. During the review process, authors may be asked to provide the MOR Senior Editor and the reviewers with access to instruments and data, including survey instruments, field notes, variable definitions, transformations, and statistical procedures. Such materials will be kept confidential (as all submitted manuscripts are). Authors who foresee difficulty in complying with this policy must disclose it at the time of submission.

  7. 7. Qualitative studies. MOR encourages the submission of qualitative studies. The review policies for qualitative case studies are under development. However, such studies must be clear about the research question of interest, methods, such as examination of archival documents, interviews, informants, triangulation, alternative or competing explanations for observed phenomena, etc. Qualitative studies will be guided by Senior Editors who are knowledgeable with the requirements and nuances of such studies.

  8. 8. Replication. Publishing replication studies or null findings are foundational for building cumulative knowledge about any phenomenon. MOR encourages the submission of replication studies using the same data or new data. Replication studies must be identified at time of submission to alert the Editor prior to assigning a Senior Editor for guiding the review of the paper. A replication paper must provide sufficient detail of the purpose of the replication and the importance of the finding.

  9. 9. We recognize authors who share material and data and preregister their studies.
    “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants,” wrote Isaac Newton1. We recognize that science is a collective effort (Lewin et al., 2016). Scholars build on the efforts of their predecessors and contemporaries: refining theories, testing predictions, honing instruments. To benefit from others’ work, one must have access to it.

    That is why the scientific currency is a peer-reviewed publication — making one’s work publicly available. Yet any journal article has limitations on its length, so it necessarily omits some information that may be useful for those who wish to build on its author’s research. Because of the current reproducibility crisis in science, in which the validity of much published research is questionable, fuller disclosure can bolster validity and renew trust in scientific findings. To find out more, see the Preregistration and preapprovals page.

    Management and Organization Review (MOR) recognizes authors who share more than a manuscript by featuring badges that recognize exemplary scientific practices: openly sharing materials or data, or preregistering the study. The badges will be featured prominently in the published article.

    Such badges have been introduced in similarly leading journals in other disciplines, such as Psychological Science and the American Journal of Political Science, and are based on the principles of the Open Science Framework.

    When submitting an eligible manuscript, authors will indicate the desired badges. Upon acceptance, a journal editor will verify eligibility.

    Open Material Badge Open Materials
    We grant an Open Materials badge to authors who deposit their research materials in an open-access repository. A prominent repository is the Open Science Framework (OSF); many other repositories are listed in the Registry of Research Data Repositories. The deposited materials should be as complete as possible, to allow an independent researcher to reproduce the reported methodology. Depending on the methodology, materials may include statistical code, questionnaires, interview questions, experimental procedures, and participant instructions (but not data).

    Open Data Badge Open Data
    Separately, we grant an Open Data badge to authors who deposit their data (and statistical code, if necessary) in such an open-access repository. Authors can satisfy this requirement by depositing their entire dataset or by depositing a slice of it, as long as it allows an independent researcher to reproduce the reported results. If confidentiality is sought, authors may deposit a transformed dataset, as long as it allows reproduction of the reported results (Reiter, 2002). Depending on the methodology, deposited data may include quantitative and qualitative materials, but may not compromise the anonymity of participants or undermine promises of confidentiality. Often, it is easy to remove such identifying information from the dataset while preserving the ability of an independent researcher to reproduce the results. But if access to such identifying information is necessary to reproduce the reported results, then authors are not eligible for an open data badge.

    If the data are statistical, authors are expected to deposit the code necessary to generate the results. Once the data and the code are available, authors may, but are not required to, assist others in using the deposited materials.

    Preapproved Badge Preapproved and Preregistered Study
    We offer preapproval for studies, drawing on the model of registered reports in the natural and social sciences. Such practices advance science, so we wish to encourage them: Authors whose studies were preapproved and preregistered will receive in-principle acceptance. The published article will bear the corresponding badge.

    A study is considered preapproved and preregistered because its scientific value has been determined by peer review before the results were known. It implies that theory and research questions have been peer-reviewed and deemed sufficiently important; and the hypotheses and data collection procedures were established before seeing the results. Preapproval and preregistration are meant to counteract the prevalence of publication bias: Studies with positive, “interesting” or “counterintuitive” results are more likely to be published than others, thereby skewing the literature and miscommunicating the likelihood of certain outcomes (Begg & Berlin, 1988). In management, the publication bias may have been exacerbated by the desire for novel results (Starbuck, 2016). One estimate suggested that 24%-40% of results in strategic management cannot be replicated (Goldfarb & King, 2016). Another suggested the real number may be even higher (Bergh, Sharp, Aguinis, & Li, 2017).

    To apply for preapproval, authors are invited to submit a proposal for a study, a proposal akin in content to a grant proposal. The proposal should present a research question, explain the theoretical significance of the study, review the relevant literature, derive hypotheses, and propose the source of data, whether existing or new. Essentially, authors submit what constitutes the roughly a half of a ready manuscript, up to and including the Data section. But, in the proposal, they need not provide analysis, results, or conclusion. Instead, they provide a time estimate for completing the study, once approved.

    The proposal is submitted via the online submission system as any manuscript — the authors simply indicate that this is a proposal. Prior to submission, the authors register the proposal in a public, open-access repository (but they may keep the registration non-public during the review process). Examples of repositories include the Open Science Framework (OSF), which is comprehensive, and As Predicted, which offers concise registration. Hundreds of other repositories are listed in the Registry of Research Data Repositories.

    The proposal is treated as any other manuscript: It is reviewed by the editorial staff, and if deemed relevant to the journal, it is assigned to a Senior Editor. The editor may find it unsuitable for the journal or send the proposal for peer-review. After peer review, the editor may reject the proposal, request revisions, or approve it. If approved, the authors commit to collecting data and completing the study as proposed. In return, the journal grants conditional acceptance — regardless of the findings. In other words, because of the importance of the subject matter, MOR will publish the final manuscript whether the results are as hypothesized or not, whether positive or null.

    After the conditional acceptance, the authors embark on data collection, analysis, and writing to turn the proposal into a manuscript. The manuscript may be published in two parts: The first part will report results of the study according to the approved and registered plan. The second will present and discuss exploratory (post hoc) analyses, which may arise while analyzing and reporting the originally approved study. Both parts will feature the preapproval and preregistration badge.

    1 Newton was rephrasing Bernard of Chartres, a 12th century scholar (see discussion in Merton, 1965).

    Bergh, D. D., Sharp, B. M., Aguinis, H., & Li, M. (2017). Is there a credibility crisis in strategic management research? Evidence on the reproducibility of study findings. Strategic Organization, 15(3), 423-436. doi: 10.1177/1476127017701076

    Goldfarb, B., & King, A. (2016). Scientific apophenia in strategic management research: Significance tests & mistaken inference. Strategic Management Journal, 37(1), 167-176.

    Lewin, A. Y., Chiu, C.-Y., Fey, C. F., Levine, S. S., McDermott, G., Murmann, J. P., & Tsang, E. (2016). The critique of empirical social science: New policies at management and organization review Management and Organization Review, 12(4), 649-658.

    Merton, R. K. (1965). On the shoulders of giants: A shandean postscript. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

    Reiter, J. P. (2002). Satisfying disclosure restrictions with synthetic data sets. Journal of Official Statistics, 18(4), 531.

    Starbuck, W. H. (2016). 60th anniversary essay: How journals could improve research practices in social science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(2), 165-183. doi: 10.1177/0001839216629644


Online Submission

Please submit manuscripts online through the MOR ScholarOne Manuscripts site at

The manuscript is checked to ensure that it is appropriate for the journal, that it is formatted according to the MOR Style Guide, and that it is formatted for blind review. Every submission is also checked with state of the art online plagiarism software.

Manuscript Format

1. The journal publishes articles in English only. Translation of abstracts in Chinese, Hindi, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish are available online.

2. The journal accepts original manuscripts that are not under review or consideration for publication in other journals or books.

3. All papers will be blind reviewed by two qualified reviewers. MOR aims to provide timely feedback and will aim to make first editorial decision within 60 days after manuscript has been assigned to Senior Editor.

4. Manuscripts must be double-spaced throughout (this includes notes and references) with all margins at least one inch and no more than 40 pages. The first page of the manuscript should include a title, an informative abstract of no more than 200 words, and three to five keywords or phrases. References must be listed alphabetically. All tables and figures should be at the end of the manuscript, after the references.

Editorial Review Process

Management and Organization Review has a decentralized editorial structure composed of Senior Editors and an Editorial Review Board committed to working with authors to develop interesting ideas into publishable papers. Each Senior Editor has the autonomy to accept or reject a paper for publication or to request that the author revise and resubmit the paper. The decisions of Senior Editors are binding on the journal.

MOR is committed to providing in-depth, constructive, and insightful reviews. Therefore, authors are invited to nominate two Senior Editors who are best suited to oversee the review of the paper. Prior to nominating two Senior Editors please review the list of Senior Editors and their research interests. Feel free to review their personal web sites. The Editor in Chief or Deputy Editors will make the assignment of the Senior Editor. In addition, authors are invited to nominate up to four reviewers (with suitable expertise and no conflict of interest with the author(s) (e.g., co-authors, mentors, past students, same faculty, family, etc.) as potential reviewers for the paper being reviewed). Management and Organization Review will make every effort to select one author-nominated reviewer. Manuscripts are reviewed in a double-blind process by at least two reviewers. The Senior Editor integrates his or her independent evaluation with those of the reviewers to provide guidelines for revising the paper when it is considered suitable for potential publication in MOR or reasons for why the paper is not suitable for publication in Management and Organization Review.

To maximize the match between the research reported in the paper, it is important that authors give careful thought to the nomination of the two Senior Editors and ad-hoc reviewers.

Questions: Please forward any questions regarding the submission or review process to Tina Minchella (, the Managing Editor for Management and Organization Review.

Open Access

Please visit for information on our open access policies, compliance with major funding bodies, and guidelines on depositing your manuscript in an institutional repository.


Please note that failure to follow the style guidelines may result in the return of your manuscript for reformatting before it is considered as a submission.

Authors, particularly those whose first language is not English, may wish to have their English-language manuscripts checked by a native speaker before submission. This is optional, but may help to ensure that the academic content of the paper is fully understood by the editor and any reviewers. We list a number of third-party services specialising in language editing and/or translation here, and suggest that authors contact as appropriate.

Please note that the use of any of these services is voluntary, and at the author's own expense. Use of these services does not guarantee that the manuscript will be accepted for publication, nor does it restrict the author to submitting to a Cambridge published journal.

Manuscript Format

1. Manuscripts must be double-spaced throughout (this includes notes and references) on one side of A4 or US standard letter size paper with all margins at least one inch.

2. Though we do not impose a page limit, we encourage conciseness in writing. Typical manuscripts are expected to be between 25 to 40 pages, including references, tables, and figures. The best ideas are expressed in simple, direct language. Excessive references are not helpful. Cite only the most representative and authoritative sources to support your points.

3. The separate title page has the title of the paper, the names of all the authors and their affiliations, along with the detailed address of the corresponding author, including full postal address, email address, phone number, and fax number.

4. The first page of the manuscript should have the title of the paper and an informative abstract of no more than 200 words, double-spaced. Provide three to five keywords or phrases to help in identifying appropriate reviewers and to facilitate abstracting and search functions. The title should be short, informative, and contain a major keyword. A short running title (fewer than 40 characters) should also be provided.

5. The body of the paper begins on page two with the main heading INTRODUCTION, left justified. It is not necessary to include the title on this page.

6. Primary headings should be capitalized and bold. Secondary headings should be in upper and lower case, bold, and with the first letters of each word capitalized. Tertiary headings should be italicized with the first letter of the first word capitalized. All headings should be left justified.

7. Organize the manuscript into the following main sections: INTRODUCTION, THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES (if hypotheses are used), METHOD, RESULTS, DISCUSSION, and CONCLUSION. Use secondary headings within each main section to clearly organize the presentation.

8. Put sentences in the active voice ("I did it"; "They did it") instead of the passive voice ("It was done") to make it easy for readers to see who did what. Use the first person (‘I’ or ‘we’) to describe what you yourself did. However, be sure to avoid any phrasing that may reveal your identity and compromise the blind peer review process. For example, when self-referencing, write ‘In Smith (2000), results showed . . .’ DO NOT write ‘In my previous research (Smith, 2000), results showed . . .’ or ‘The author’s previous research (Smith, 2000) revealed . . .’

9. If required, use notes and not endnotes or footnotes. See section on ‘Notes’ in this document for more information on the preparation of notes.

10. A separate acknowledgements document should identify the source of financial grants and other funding as well as the contribution of colleagues or institutions. Please note that this information should not be included in the main manuscript document to ensure the blind review process is not compromised. Once a paper has been accepted or conditionally accepted and is past the blind review process, acknowledgements will be included as the first entry in the NOTES section. The numbered notes (e.g., [1]) begin after the acknowledgements.

11. Put all tables, figures, and appendices at the end of the manuscript, following the REFERENCES.

12. All pages should be numbered consecutively in the top right-hand corner.

13. Prepare the entire manuscript (including tables and figures) in Microsoft Word® using Times New Roman font. Use 12 point size for the body of the paper.

Tables and Figures

1. Each table or figure should bear an Arabic number (1, 2, etc.) and a title and should be reasonably interpretable without reference to the text.

2. Each table should be bracketed with a solid horizontal line with minimum use of horizontal lines inside the table. Do not use vertical lines in the tables or figures. Check published papers in MOR for table and figure format.

3. Each table or figure should be presented on a separate page at the end of the manuscript, after the REFERENCES. Figures and tables reproduced from already published work must be accompanied by the permission of the original publisher (or copyright holder, if not the publisher). Please indicate the position of figures and tables in the text as follows:


4. Should your paper be accepted for publication, please ensure that all figures are of a suitable quality and resolution to be printed. Do not embed graphics in the Word document – they must be supplied in separate files, one file per figure. Full information on how to prepare and supply your figures can be found here.

5. Charges apply for all colour figures that appear in the print version of the journal. At the time of submission, contributors should clearly state whether their figures should appear in colour in the online version only, or whether they should appear in colour online and in the print version. There is no charge for including colour figures in the online version of the Journal but it must be clear that colour is needed to enhance the meaning of the figure, rather than simply being for aesthetic purposes. If you request colour figures in the printed version, you will be contacted by CCC-Rightslink who are acting on our behalf to collect Author Charges. Please follow their instructions in order to avoid any delay in the publication of your article.

6. Avoid "stacking" – write all words horizontally, not vertically.

7. Use tabs, not spaces, to separate data points in tables.

8. Use the same variable names you use in the text. Spell out the words or names of all the variables in the tables or figures. Do not abbreviate. Look at figures in published MOR articles for format ideas.

9. Data entries in tables should be restricted to two decimal places.

10. In tables, footnote symbols †, ‡, § and ¶ should be used (in that order) and *, **, *** should be reserved for P-values.


Citations must be used to identify and credit the appropriate source(s) when you refer to or borrow ideas, paraphrase text, or quote verbatim in your manuscript. Verbatim quotations are text taken directly, word-for-word from another written work. They are generally a few words or more but also include original one or two word phrases coined by an author that have not yet integrate into common speech. Again, whether you are directly quoting, summarizing, or simply referring t another author’s ideas, it is imperative that you cite.

1. In the text, where the author’s name appears, the date should follow in parentheses, e.g., Mintzberg (1985). If the author’s name is not present in the text, insert it with the date in parentheses, e.g., (Mintzberg, 1985).

2. Multiple references should be listed alphabetically in parentheses, separated by semicolons, e.g., (Jackson, 1996; Watson, 1986).

3. Page numbers to indicate a passage of special relevance or to give the source of a quotation or paraphrase should appear in parentheses, e.g., (Willmott, 1992: 12).

4. If there is more than one reference to the same author in the same year, postscript the date of each reference with a, b, c, etc., e.g., (Sparrow, 1998a, 1998b).

5. For references with two authors, give both names every time you cite it, e.g., (Meyer & Lu, 2004).

6. References with three to six authors should be listed in full in the first appearance of the citation in the text, e.g., (Weber, Ames, & Blais, 2005). Use the last name of the first author and "et al." in all its subsequent appearances in the text, e.g., (Weber et al., 2005).

7. For seven or more authors, use "et al." even for the first citation. (Note: the matching reference should give all the authors.)


In general, MOR discourages the use of notes as essential information should be included in the body of the paper. If Notes are required, however, they should be provided on a separate page immediately following the text and before the REFERENCES under the heading NOTES. Notes should be numbered in the list and referred to in the text with consecutive, superscript Arabic numerals. Please see articles in past issues of MOR for examples of notes. When using notes, please type the notes as a continuation of the main body text and avoid using Word’s endnote or footnote reference tools.


Cite the names of all authors. Do not use ibid or op cit. References should be listed alphabetically by author and be placed at the end of the manuscript, before the tables, figures, and appendices. Reference to unpublished data and personal communications should not appear in the list but should be cited in the text only (e.g., Smith, 2000, unpublished data). All citations mentioned in the text, tables or figures must be listed in the reference list. Authors are responsible for the accuracy of the references.

We recommend the use of a tool such as EndNote or Reference Manager for reference management and formatting. EndNote reference styles can be searched for here:
Reference Manager reference styles can be searched for here:

1. Journal references should be listed as follows:

Meyer, M. W., & Lu, X. 2005. Managing indefinite boundaries: The strategy and structure of a Chinese business firm. Management and Organization Review, 1(1): 57–86. Nonaka, I. 1991.

The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6): 96-104.

Please always include an issue number in parentheses after the volume number to help facilitate other researchers seeking to find your references.

2. Book references should be listed as follows:

Law, J. 1994. Organizing modernity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Shapira, Z. (Ed.) 1997. Organizational decision making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

3. Chapter references should appear as follows:

Zhou, X. 1997. Organizational decision making as rule following. In Z. Shapira (Ed.), Organizational decision making: 257–281. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

4. Unpublished papers or conference presentations should appear as follows:

Chen, M. H. 1998. Organizational citizenship behavior in the service industry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Wallace, J. H. 2004. Creativity in high technology firms. Paper presented at the inaugural conference of the International Association for Chinese Management Research, Beijing, June 2004.

5. If an article has no author, the periodical or producing body is referenced:

Business Week. 1998. The best B-schools. October 19: 86-94.

6. Articles used from online sources should appear as follows:

Hofstede, G. 2003. Hofstede Scores: China. Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions. [Cited 10 March 2006.] Available from URL: http://www.geert-


Present long but essential methodological details, such as explanations of the calculation of measures or items of new measures not already in the text, in an appendix or appendices. Presentation should be concise, but avoid table formats and reproductions of surveys. Multiple appendices are labeled numerically as follows: Appendix I, Appendix II, etc. and referred to in the text.

Technical Note

Many authors use the tracking facility of the reviewing tool in working on successive versions of their manuscripts. Word can detect corrections to previous versions of the manuscript by clicking on a "Showing Markup" option when the Reviewing tool bar is activated. To prevent this and to ensure blind reviews, before submitting your manuscript you should (i) click on "Final", (ii) select the entire document, and then (iii) save that version as a new file under a new name. That will be a "clean" version, free of the history of previous versions and corrections. This is the version that you should submit to MOR.

The Properties Summary of a document often automatically populates with an author’s name and company. Please go to File > Properties > Summary to delete this information, then save prior to submitting.

Last updated 20th September 2017