amj-contribution-framing

1# Contribution Framing & Discussion (amj-contribution-framing)
2 
3## When to trigger
4 
5- Results are in but the "so what for theory" is vague or missing
6- The discussion restates findings instead of advancing the theory
7- A reviewer says the contribution is "incremental," "descriptive," or "unclear"
8- You can describe what you found but not what the field now knows that it did not before
9- The practical-implications paragraph is generic ("managers should pay attention to X")
10 
11## The contribution question AMJ asks
12 
13AMJ evaluates every paper on **three criteria**: a strong empirical contribution, a meaningful **theoretical** contribution, and **practical relevance**. The empirical contribution must be paired with a theoretical one: *what do we now understand about the theory that we did not before?* — and the discussion must also speak to why it matters for management practice. A clear, defensible theoretical answer is essential; strong results with no theoretical advance read as a technical report, not an AMJ paper. AMJ's *From the Editors* tradition frames this as the "so what?" and "who cares?" tests.
14 
15## Types of theoretical contribution (claim the right one)
16 
17| Contribution type            | What it does                                                       |
18|------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
19| Reveal a new mechanism       | Explains *why* an established effect occurs                         |
20…