Published Online:

Growth in research on management has been accompanied by awareness of ethical problems that pose a serious threat to the integrity of our publication process, and the soundness of our knowledge base. This Special Section in AMLE analyzes the forces that give rise to research practices that violate espoused research norms and presents remedies that can curtail these practices. In this opening article, we review key points raised by the articles in this Special Section, but also explore some of them in greater depth. We open with a discussion of how escalating competition for scarce publication space is shaping ethical choices, creating an environment in which many researchers believe that the playing field is tilted against them. We then examine how growth exacerbates competitive pressures, leading to weakening of community cohesion. This in turn undermines research norms, with adverse impact on professional identity. Our attention next turns to the ethical challenges confronting editors and reviewers. We argue that these gatekeepers also experience pressures that constrain their ability to oversee the publication process diligently and fairly. We conclude with a summary of the four articles that make up the Special Section.


  • Bedeian A. G., Taylor S. G., Miller A. N. 2010. Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(4): 715–725.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Bergh D., Sharp B., Li M. 2017. Tests for identifying red flags in empirical findings: Demonstration and recommendations for authors, reviewers, and editors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(1): 110–124.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Bettis R. A. 2012. The search for asterisks: Compromised statistical tests and flawed theory. Strategic Management Journal, 33: 108–113. Google Scholar
  • Butler N., Delaney H., Spoelstra S. 2017. The grey zone: Questionable research practices in the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(1): 94–109.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Byington E., Felps W. 2017. Solutions to the credibility crisis in management science. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(1): 142–162.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Carney D. 2016. My position on power poses, regarding: Carney, Cuddy & Yap (2010). Retrieved from: Viewed, Jan, 10, 2017. Google Scholar
  • Carney D. R., Cuddy A. J., Yap A. J. 2010. Power posing brief nonverbal displays affect neuroendocrine levels and risk tolerance. Psychological Science, 21(10): 1363–1368. Google Scholar
  • Clair J. A. 2015. Procedural injustice in the system of peer review and scientific misconduct. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(2): 159–172.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Cuddy A. 2015. Presence: Bringing your boldest self to your biggest challenges. UK: Hachette. Google Scholar
  • Cuddy A. J., Wilmuth C. A., Carney D. R. 2012. The benefit of power posing before a high-stakes social evaluation. Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 13-027. Google Scholar
  • Day N. E. 2011. The silent majority: Manuscript rejection and its impact on scholars. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(4): 704–718.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • de Solla Price D. J. 1986. Little science, big science… and beyond: 301. New York: Columbia University Press. Google Scholar
  • Elsbach K. D., Kramer R. M. 1996. Members' responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the Business Week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3): 442–476. Google Scholar
  • Guillotin B., Mangematin V. 2015. Internationalization strategies of business schools: How flat is the world? Thunderbird International Business Review, 57(5): 343–357. Google Scholar
  • Gulati R. 2007. Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: The rigor-relevance debate in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 775–782.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Harley B., Faems D., Corbett A. 2014. A few bad apples or the tip of an iceberg? Academic misconduct in publishing. Journal of Management Studies, 51(8): 1361–1363. Google Scholar
  • Helfat C. E., Klepper S. 2007. Firm and industry evolution and entrepreneurship (FIVE Project): Data overview, 2007 Kauffman Symposium on Entrepreneurship and Innovation Data. Kansas City, MO, Available at Google Scholar
  • Honig B., Bedi A. 2012. The fox in the hen house: A critical examination of plagiarism among members of the Academy of Management. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(1): 101–123.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Honig B., Lampel J., Siegel D., Drnevich P. 2014. Ethics in the production and dissemination of management research: Institutional failure or individual fallibility? Journal of Management Studies, 51(1): 118–142. Google Scholar
  • House of Commons. 2011. Peer review in scientific publications. Science and Technology Committee. London: The Stationery Office Limited. Google Scholar
  • Kolata G. 2016, July 14. So many research scientists, so few openings as professors. New York Times. Google Scholar
  • Martin B. R. 2013. Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment. Research Policy, 42(5): 1005–1014. Google Scholar
  • Mazar N., Amir O., Ariely D. 2008. The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6): 633–644. Google Scholar
  • Merton R. 1973. The normative structure of science. In Storer Norman W. (Ed.), The sociology of science theoretical and empirical investigations: 267–278. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  • Murphy J., Zhu J. 2012. Neo-colonialism in the academy? Anglo-American domination in management journals. Organization, 19(6): 915–927. Google Scholar
  • Nedeva M., Boden R. 2006. Changing science: The advent of neo-liberalism. Prometheus, 24(3): 269–281. Google Scholar
  • Olson M. 1965. The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  • Piketty T. 2014. Capital in the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  • Planck M. 1949. Scientific autobiography and other papers. Gaynor, F. (trans.). New York: Philosophical Library. Google Scholar
  • Pratt M. G., Rockmann K. W., Kaufmann J. B. 2006. Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2): 235–262.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Ranehill E., Dreber A., Johannesson M., Leiberg S., Sul S., Weber R. A. 2015. Assessing the robustness of power posing no effect on hormones and risk tolerance in a large sample of men and women. Psychological Science, 26(5): 653–656. Google Scholar
  • Salverda W., et al.. (Eds.) 2014. Changing inequalities in rich countries: Analytical and comparative perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Schwab A., Starbuck W. H. 2017. A call for openness in research reporting: How to turn covert practices into helpful tools. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(1): 125–141.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Simmons J. P., Simonsohn U. 2016. In press. Power posing: P-curving the evidence. Psychological Science. Google Scholar
  • Simmons J. P., Simonsohn U. 2015. Datacolada: Thinking about evidence and vice versa. [37] Power Posing: Reassessing the Evidence Behind the Most Popular TED Talk. Retrieved from:; accessed Jan. 10, 2017. Google Scholar
  • Steneck N. 2006. Fostering integrity in research: Definition, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1): 53–74. Google Scholar
  • Wilhite A., Fong E. 2012. Coercive citation in academic publishing. Science, 335(6068): 542–543. Google Scholar
  • Yap A. J., Wazlawek A. S., Lucas B. J., Cuddy A. J., Carney D. R. 2013. The ergonomics of dishonesty: The effect of incidental posture on stealing, cheating, and traffic violations. Psychological Science, 24(11): 2281–2289. Google Scholar
Academy of Management
  Academy of Management
  555 Pleasantville Road, Suite N200
  Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510-8020, USA
  Phone: +1 (914) 326-1800
  Fax: +1 (914) 326-1900