Griep, Yannick, Obenauer, William Billy, Cruz, Kevin S., Davis, Walter, Harvey, Paul, Pinto, Jonatahn, Rapp, Tammy, Rau, Devaki, Anisman-Razin, Moran, Bennett, Andrew, Bojovic, Neva, Branicki, Layla, Caner, Turanay, Dejordy, Rich, Djurdjevic, Emilija, Fenneman, Achiel, Fennman, Jesse, Ferguson, Amanda, Fida, Roberta, Follmer, Kayla, Fortin, Marion, Garbers, Yvonne, Garcia, Patrick, Geiger, Mark, Gianodis, Peter and And, al (2026) Getting Published in, and Reviewing for, Group & Organization Management. Group & organization management, vol.51 (n°3). 1153- 1199.

Abstract

Every year at the Academy of Management meetings, the editors of Group & Organization Management (GOM) meet with the editorial board and friends of the journal to discuss what we are looking for and, just as importantly, what we are not looking for. Usually, this appears as a single slide. The aim of this editorial is to turn that slide into a detailed, written guide for authors and reviewers. We want to clarify what counts as a strong fit and contribution for GOM, how questionable research practices (QRPs) can creep into reviewing just as much as into authorship, how we see the balance between theory and methods at the journal, and how reviewers can appropriately evaluate the different formats we publish—regular manuscripts, GOMusings, GOM Now, and GOMethods—without applying a one-size-fits-all empirical template to everything. Our hope is that this editorial will be equally useful to authors deciding whether a manuscript belongs at GOM and to reviewers thinking about how to write fair, rigorous, and developmental reviews.