For many potential authors understanding the process by which we evaluate and decide upon proposals is quite different from what they normally see in the journal process. To help you submit a proposal to AMP, we are making available—with the agreement of authors—examples of successful proposals. These examples are indicative of those that eventually led to publication. Please consider them as suggestions.
A few things should be noted when looking at these proposals.
First, we have purposely provided proposals that were revise-resubmit decisions. Proposal, as papers, can sometime be given the chance to revise and resubmit. In these cases we gave advice as to what might be acceptable, given we saw some value in the ideas. These examples illustrate how proposals can be improved.
Second, even though a proposal might be accepted, what ends up getting published is shaped by the interactions between the author, editorial review board members, and editors. The purpose of the review process is to strengthen the contribution of the paper, and to draw out the attributes that make it publishable. Hence, it is useful for you to look at both the proposals and the final published paper, as there can be differences between the two.
Third, as previously noted, these proposals are EXAMPLES. They are not an idealization of a 'perfect' proposal nor do they exhaustively represent what proposals might look like. Hence, when you examine them, please understand that they can assist you to write your proposal but they are not templates. Proposals vary quite dramatically in tone and orientation. What is important, however, is to keep to the guidelines outlined when submitting your proposal.
Finally, please understand that the acceptance of a paper or symposium proposal does not mean that the full paper or papers in the symposium will be published eventually. Each paper undergoes a double blind peer review process. This is why we usually ask for 6 to 8 papers to be committed to a symposium proposal, with the expectation that not all will survive the review process.
Article Proposal Examples:
The two examples of proposals given here were ultimately bundled together as a symposium, with one additional paper. However, they were submitted as independent proposals over a two-year period of time. The decision to integrate them as a symposium was made later by the editors. This highlights how AMP can be very different in the active management of the mix of articles.
The first example is the proposal related to
The second example is the proposal related to an article on a related topic.
Unlike the prior example, the proposal for this paper was accepted in its original form. It is also in line with the guidelines as specified on the website.
Symposium Proposal Example:
At present we have few examples of proposals using the new guidelines as we are only now publishing a symposium in every issue. However, the example below is a good one in that it comes closest to addressing the components we demand in a good symposium proposal. This set of papers was an integrated symposium on non-market strategies published in 2016. The related articles are:
- Institutions, Economic Freedom, and Entrepreneurship: The Contribution of Management Scholarship, by Steven W. Bradley and Peter Klein, August 2016 30:211-221.
- An Embedded Agency Approach to Entrepreneurship Public Policy: Managerial Position and Politics in New Venture Location Decisions, by Jeffery S. McMullen, Matthew S. Wood, and Alexander S. Kier, August 2016 30:222-246.
- Two-Way Streets: The Role of Institutions and Technology Policy in Firms' Corporate Entrepreneurship and Political Strategies, by R. Michael Holmes, Jr., Shaker A. Zahra, Robert E. Hoskisson, Kaitlyn DeGhetto, and Trey Sutton, August 2016 26:247-272.
- Untapped Riches of Meso-Level Applications in Multilevel Entrepreneurship Mechanisms, by Phillip H. Kim, Karl Wennberg, and Grégoire Croidieu, August 2016 30:273-291.
- Institutions, Entrepreneurship, and Economic Growth: What Do We Know and What Do We Still Need to Know?, by Christian Bjørnskov and Nicolai J. Foss, August 2016 30:292-315.
To illustrate what an impactful AMP paper eventually looks like, read the 2016 Best Article by Gerald F. Davis: