International Journal of Arts Management

Aims and Scope

IJAM welcomes manuscripts using diverse theoretical and research frameworks and approaches to topics across the domain of arts management, but also cultural studies, cultural policy, and economics. Articles are expected to adhere to high-quality scientific standards and promote knowledge and understanding for professionals and practitioners interested in theoretical developments and empirical research regarding the creative economy. IJAM addresses current issues of key relevance for the creative and cultural economy, and presents rigorous empirical research, providing a forum for challenging and debating coherent theories and models, as well as their application in creative and cultural practice. International and comparative research that builds knowledge and theory that is useful for practitioners and scholars around the world is also encouraged. Systemic literature reviews aiming at suggesting present gaps and future paths of research are also welcomed in the IJAM Research Papers section.

Guidelines for publication

Academic contributions should be between 7,000 and 9,000 words (with the +/- 10% rule) words in length. All papers should be accompanied by up to six keywords and by a short abstract (150 words) outlining aims, main conclusions, and the methodology used. Papers should be accompanied by a short biography for each author (about 50 words), including the organization with which he or she is associated. Authors should submit two separate files, one with title, names, and a short bio and the other with the manuscript. Manuscripts should be strictly anonymous. Once a manuscript is formally accepted, authors will receive instructions regarding the publication process. Authors will be required to assign copyright to their articles. Copyright assignment is a condition of publication and articles cannot proceed through production unless copyright has been assigned.
IJAM strongly encourages all authors to publicize their articles via social media and/or their organization’s marketing team.

The editorial process for IJAM Research Papers

Once a manuscript has been submitted by the authors, it goes through the following steps of the editorial process:

• Initial assessment e-mail: Authors receive an initial assessment e-mail within two weeks of submitting their manuscript. If the paper is deemed unsuitable for publication, the process ends here. If the paper is deemed suitable, the Editors in Chief will appoint an Associate Editor supervising the reviewing process.

• Manuscripts sent for peer review: The Associate Editor selects two reviewers with expertise in the topic addressed in the paper. These reviewers have four to six weeks to submit their evaluation reports. The peer-review process is based on the following criteria:

  •       Theoretical robustness: the paper should ground its hypotheses or research questions on past literature. The argument should be well developed and the definition and use of concepts appropriate.

  •       Scientific quality: the research design should follow the canons of scientific rigor and the methodology used should be appropriate for the research. The conclusions should be supported by data and the results of the study should be reproducible.

  •       Innovation and originality: the manuscript should contribute to improving existing knowledge and it should address relevant issues for the scholarly and practitioners’ community.

  •       Clarity and logic of the paper: the writing should be clear and comprehensible also for non-academics. Papers which do not meet the English standards will be desk rejected.

• Editorial decision #1: Based on the evaluation reports and on his/her own assessment of the manuscript, the Associate Editor makes an editorial decision corresponding to one of the following four recommendations:

  •       Accepted

  •       R&R with minor revisions: The authors must make the requested changes and return the revised version of the manuscript within one month.

  •       R&R with major revisions: The authors must make the requested changes and resubmit the manuscript within three months.

  •       Rejected

• Editorial decision #2: Based on the revised version of the manuscript and on the author’s letter detailing the changes made, the Associate Editor makes a second editorial decision. If major changes have been made, the Editor may ask for the opinion of the reviewers. The Associate Editor will make one of the following recommendations:

  •       Accepted.

  •       Additional changes requested: The authors must make the requested changes and return the newly revised version of the manuscript within one month.

  •       Rejected.

• Once the manuscript has been accepted, the Journal’s production team will then do a linguistic check and formatting of the documents. The authors will be asked to approve the suggested corrections rapidly. It is the authors’ responsibility to proof-read manuscripts in order to meet  English language academic standards.

• As soon as they have been finalized, the paper will be posted online on the Journal’s website. At this point, the documents can be accessed by subscribers in accordance with the applicable terms and conditions of use. The accepted manuscript will then be published in the next available issue of IJAM.

Aims and Scope

This Section aims at collecting case studies that:

• Describe a story offering the opportunity to discuss it in class
• Underline best (or even worst) practices
• Provide a useful tool for teaching
• Help in linking scholarly debate with the practice

Submitted manuscripts will be subject to a double-blind peer-review process involving the IJAM Case Studies Associate Editor and two anonymous reviewers. Case studies should be international in scope, and they should depict or be inspired by real situations. They should be focused on one issue/situation/controversy that executives, organizations, fields, or industries encounter, and they should suggest how to lead the discussion about the case in class fostering the theory and the learning takeaways from the discussion.

Guidelines for publication

IJAM Case Studies must be submitted with accompanying Teaching Notes. Additionally, any complimentary documents can be submitted as well (Excel files, ppt, videos…). If the Case is developed in partnership with a company, the author(s) is (are) required to provide an authorization duly signed by the company to publish the case. When submitting a Case study please submit three separate files:

1. Authors and Affiliations

Please list all authors who played a significant role in developing the points presented in the article, provide full affiliation information (full institutional address and ZIP code, and e-mail address) for all authors, and a short bio.

2. IJAM Case Study

Please provide a concise and specific title that reflects the content of the article. Authors should supply up to six relevant keywords that describe the subject of their manuscript. The format of the main body of the article is flexible: it should be concise, making it easy to read and review, and presented in a format that is appropriate for the type of case presented. The case study must be a qualitative descriptive piece, often containing narrative elements, which seek to explore a particular situation or sequence of events in a non-prescriptive way. Conclusions may be left open to the interpretation of the reader. The writer of a case study must make a conscious effort to refrain from distorting the situation being described with his or her own beliefs, prejudices, or assumptions. Any references should be listed as Footnotes, following IJAM guidelines on Manuscript formatting. Only use references that you have read, understood, and used in the Case Study. Do not use more than approximately 5 references without some clear justification.

3. IJAM Case Study Teaching Notes

Teaching notes are fundamental in the submission. They should include as minimum requirements:

• an abstract that highlights the problem at stake in the Case and why the case study might be interesting for academic purposes
• the educational aims of the case and the theory it addresses
• the recommended use for the Case (i.e. target audience, type of program)
• Case Study questions and assignments proposed for the discussion
• a suggested brief lesson plan for the instructor

The editorial process for IJAM Case Studies

Once a Case has been submitted by the authors, it goes through the following steps of the editorial process:

• Initial assessment e-mail: Authors receive an initial assessment e-mail within two weeks of submitting their case. If the case is deemed unsuitable for publication, the process ends here. If the case is deemed suitable, the following steps apply.

• Case sent for peer review: The Associate Editor selects two reviewers with expertise in the theme(s) addressed in the case. These reviewers have four to six weeks to submit their evaluation reports. The peer-review process focuses on:

  •       Transferability: A Case Study should be easy to use for another instructor/lecturer and the educational objectives should be detailed. Finally. The Case Study should be adaptable to different types of audiences.

  •       Authenticity: A Case Study should refer to real situations and scenarios, even when the Authors need to respect a clause of anonymity in the narrative of the Case. It should refer to settings related to creativity, the arts, and culture.

  •       Learning potential: its teaching objectives should aim at the comprehension or application of a theory in creativity/arts management/cultural policy studies, or at targeting higher-level teaching objectives such as the development of judgment, critical thinking, and decision-making skills.

  •       Clarity and logic of the paper: the writing should be clear and comprehensible above all for non-academics.

• Editorial decision #1: Based on the evaluation reports and on his/her own assessment of the case, the Associate Editor makes an editorial decision corresponding to one of the following four recommendations:

  •       Accepted

  •       R&R with minor revisions: The authors must make the requested changes and return the revised version of the case and the teaching notes within one month.

  •       R&R with major revisions: The authors must make the requested changes and resubmit the manuscript within three months.

  •       Rejected

• Editorial decision #2: Based on the revised version of the case and teaching notes and on the author’s, letter detailing the changes made, the Associate Editor makes a second editorial decision. If major changes have been made, the editor may ask for the opinion of the reviewers. The Associate Editor will make one of the following recommendations:

  •       Accepted.

  •       Additional changes requested: The authors must make the requested changes and return the newly revised version of the case and teaching notes within one month.

  •       Rejected.

• Once the case and notes have been accepted, the Journal’s editorial team will then do a linguistic revision and formatting of the documents. The authors will be asked to approve the suggested corrections rapidly.

• As soon as the case and teaching notes have been finalized, will be posted online on the Journal’s website. At this point, the documents can be accessed by subscribers in accordance with the applicable terms and conditions of use. The case will then be published in the next issue of the IJAM.

  Teaching notes will be available only to subscribers or Faculty whose university subscribed to the Journal.

Reasons for rejection of a case study

By the Journal’s editorial policy, the most common reasons for concluding that a case is unsuitable for publication in IJAM are as follows:

• It is a research case rather than a teaching case: The case is built around a theory or conceptual framework that is transparently obvious; it contains a lot of data, but it is not linked to any specific teaching objectives; its main purpose is to apply a theory or demonstrate the value or importance of a theory or conceptual framework; it is very intangible, insufficiently lively, or dynamic.

• The case lacks value as a teaching tool: It is an exercise rather than a case study; its teaching objectives are not aimed at the comprehension or application of a theory, or at targeting higher-level teaching objectives such as the development of judgment, critical thinking, and decision-making skills.

• The case is insufficiently international in scope: The situation described is of little interest to a broad readership; the description of the local context lacks detail, making comprehension difficult for readers unfamiliar with the context; the teaching notes fail to explain how the case problem is relevant outside of the local context described.

• The teaching notes are insufficiently developed: The teaching objectives and intended end-user courses are not sufficiently clear; the teaching scenario is unconvincing or poorly developed; the case analysis is superficial; no conceptual or theoretical support is proposed; there are no “answers” to the questions proposed, etc.

• The case has not been authorized for distribution: The case uses actual, non-public information, but authorization has not been obtained from the company for distribution of the case; the case is based on actual information that has been poorly disguised or the company’s authorization is missing. The case has been published elsewhere.

Aims and Scope

IJAM seeks reviews of books that are topical, contemporary, and relevant monographs and or selected edited volumes for each issue of the journal. In most cases, IJAM reviews books published in the last two years. IJAM invites academics to write a book review, may consider unsolicited book reviews; or consider recommendations from individuals to review specific books. IJAM relies also on publishers to send review copies of new books to the journal, but we do not actively solicit books from publishers.

Guidelines for IJAM Book Reviewers

IJAM wants to hear your evidence-based views on the books you review. It seeks reviews that are well-written, lively, informative, and engaging. IJAM asks you to evaluate arguments in the book reviewed rather than repeat information available online. The book review provides a critical discussion of the book thesis, structure, and style that locates it within the context of scholarly publications. Some themes to consider while writing a book review include:

Get to know the book

Get to know the book, including examining the title, section, and chapter headings and subheadings; when the book was first published; and carefully reading the book. Identify the purpose and key themes in the book. Decide on what will be the main thrust of your review.

Describe author authority: Decide persuasiveness of author argument, originality, and theoretical framework. Decide on coherence and clarity of author presentation. Decide on soundness, accuracy, and thoroughness of scholarship. Decide on effective writing style and organization of the book. Decide the relevance of source material relative to the book’s larger aims. Decide contribution to debates in the field. Decide clarity of citations and references. Decide the effectiveness of figures, tables, and images. Determine the strengths and weaknesses of the book:  Identify the audience for the book. Decide if the subject matter is appropriate for that audience. Decide if the author’s objectives are achieved. Decide if the contribution is unique and significant. Evaluate features of the book (e.g., illustrations, references, subject index, case studies) and how effectively used.

Concluding comments:
State your assessment of the book. Do you recommend that your arts management colleagues buy this book? Would you buy this book?

The following information appears in a box at the beginning of the review, using this format:

Title of the book

Authors Place of Publishing, Publisher, Year

Number of pages ISBN

Name of the Reviewer and Affiliation

The price of the book is US$

The book review must be sent as a Microsoft Word email attachment (double-spaced, Times New Roman font, 12 points). The editorial office and publishers reserve the right to copyedit all reviews accepted for publication. Please ensure the book review contains the publication and reviewer data before the review. Reviews should not require notes. If any is necessary, please see the IJAM guide. Recommended word length: Approximately 750 words (not including references)

Editorial process

When IJAM receives a recommendation or a copy of a relevant book from an academic or a publisher, we assign it to our book review editor, who then commissions the review from a scholar in the field. Relevant books are scholarly monographs and edited collections that fit within the broadly defined domain of arts management, the creative industries, cultural economics, and entertainment fields. While our first preference is for books that are published in English, we also accept book reviews of books in other languages, especially if they are going to be translated into English.

Aims and Scope

This Section seeks to incorporate the perspective of top practitioners in the Arts Management field to link scholarly debate with practice and inspire future research ideas. While the IJAM Case Studies section is necessarily retrospective, considering a practical case within its temporal and geographical context, the IJAM Practitioner Perspectives section is intended to be forward-looking, encouraging preparedness and proactive thinking in addressing topics and issues that Arts Management practitioners will face in the future.

These topics might include, for example:

• The impact of global warming and climate change on the arts
• The impact of political and economic change on the arts
• Diversity, equity, and inclusion in the arts
• Technological innovations and arts management/arts marketing strategy
• Globalization of funding and participation in the arts
• Ethics and arts leadership

The goal of submissions should be to examine an issue or “hot topic” that is of importance to practitioners in the Arts Management field and that has the potential to inspire future academic or scholarly research articles.

Guidelines for Submission

Practitioner Perspectives submissions are designed to encourage dialogue between practitioners and academics in Arts Management. They should be based around an interview between an academic and one or more practitioners in the Arts Management field.

All submissions should highlight a key issue or topic of interest faced by the practitioner(s), clearly discuss how this issue relates to or is of interest to other practitioners, and connect it to future scholarly research opportunities. A “Research Implications” section must be included at the conclusion of the submission, similar to the “Managerial Implications” section at the end of Research Paper submissions.

Submissions should be between 3,000 and 5,000 words in length (with the +/- 10% rule). References should follow IJAM guidelines on Manuscript formatting. Only include references that you have read, understood, and used in the submission. Do not use more than approximately 10 references without some clear justification.

Editorial Process

Once a Practitioner Perspectives article has been submitted by the authors, it goes through the following steps of the editorial process:

• Initial assessment e-mail: Authors receive an initial assessment e-mail within two weeks of submitting their article. If the article is deemed unsuitable for publication, the process ends here. If the article is deemed suitable, the following steps apply.
• Article sent for peer review: The Associate Editor selects two reviewers with expertise in the theme(s) addressed in the article. These reviewers have four to six weeks to submit their evaluation reports. The peer- review process focuses on:
• Relevance: A Practitioner Perspectives article should demonstrate a problem, issue, or topic that is of clear relevance to the Arts Management field.
• Rigor: Submissions should adhere to the canons of the appropriate methodology (e.g. interview or focus group).
• Scope: The topic or issue being addressed should be broad in scope, ideally globally applicable, and important to a range of Arts Management practitioners.
• Potential for Future Dialogue: The topic should have clear implications for academic research and future discussion among both scholars and practitioners.
• Clarity and Logic: The writing should be clear and comprehensible for both academics and non-academics.
• Editorial decision #1: Based on the evaluation reports and on his/her own assessment of the manuscript, the Associate Editor makes an editorial decision corresponding to one of the following four recommendations:
• Accepted
• R&R with minor revisions: The authors must make the requested changes and resubmit the manuscript within one month.
• R&R with major revisions: The authors must make the requested changes and resubmit the manuscript within three months.
• Rejected
• Editorial decision #2: Based on the revised version of manuscript and on the author’s letter detailing the changes made, the Associate Editor makes a second editorial decision. If major changes have been made, the editor may ask for the opinion of the reviewers. The Associate Editor will make one of the following recommendations:
• Accepted.
• Additional changes requested: The authors must make the requested changes and resubmit the manuscript within one month.
• Rejected.
• Once the article has been accepted, the Journal’s editorial team will then do a linguistic revision and formatting of the documents. The authors will be asked to approve the suggested corrections rapidly.
• The article will then be published in the next available issue of the IJAM.

How to Submit a Manuscript to IJAM 

All papers should be submitted electronically to https://revue.hec.ca/index.php/ijam/login. 

The first time you log in, you will need to create an account with a username and password. (Please repeat your name in the boxes that say “French.”) You can also specify your affiliation and reviewing interests. Please make sure you do not check the box that says “User must change password on next log in.” 

To submit a manuscript, click on “Submissions” in the Main Menu and choose “New Submission.” You will need to upload your manuscript as “Article Text” as well as a separate document containing a short bio for each author (50 words each), both of them in Word. Please verify that the authors’ name(s) are not included in the main article by removing them from the document. You may also attach separate figures as needed. 

You will also need to select a category for your submission. Please note that the Case Study and Practitioner Perspectives categories must meet the guidelines for these sections, and should not be selected for Research Paper submissions. 

Once you have completed the process, you should receive a confirmation email from the system. Please make sure to add 'noreply@revue.hec.ca' to your email contacts to receive notifications. If you do not receive a notification or need assistance, please contact ijam@hec.ca. 

General Information on Manuscript Formatting 

All material should be in 12-point, Times New Roman type, double-spaced with margins of one inch. Manuscripts should not be written in the first person (“I”). Use acronyms sparingly and spell them out the first time you use them. 

Papers should be written in English. It is the responsibility of the author(s) to ensure that the paper has been proofread and copyedited for language. 

We recommend that you verify that your name is not included in the main article, including in the document properties. You may want to consider using a tool such as “Protect Document” to ensure that all personal or identifying information has been removed

Manuscript Title and Section Headings

Include the title of the manuscript and an abstract of no more than 150 words on a page preceding the first page of the manuscript. Do not include the author(s) named on the title and avoid indications of authorship in the body of the manuscript whenever possible. Article title and principal subheads: 14-point roman type, title case, bold, and set on a line separate from the text. Secondary subheads: 12-point roman type, title case, bold, and set on a line separate from the text.

Tables, Figures, Charts, Appendices

Tables, figures, appendices, and any other graphics or illustrations should be placed at the very end of the manuscript, after the references. The author should indicate where each of these is to appear in the published article. Indicate the placement of tables, figures, etc. in the text as follows: leave two double spaces after the last line of preceding text; insert the sentence, [Table (Figure) N here], and leave two double spaces before beginning the next line of text. Note that the words “table,” “figure,” “appendix,” etc. should be lowercase when referred to in the text. Zeros should be omitted before decimal points in tables, but not in the text. Please do not use heavy borders or shading. If the table, figure, or chart requires to fill effects please use patterns instead of shading.

Quotations

Quoted matter that runs six or more typed lines or that involves two or more paragraphs should be set off as a block quotation; the quotation should start a new line, be set without quotation marks, and be set in an 11-point type. Shorter quotations should be included in the text and enclosed in quotation marks. Be sure to include the page number(s) where the quotation appeared.
Quotation marks should be used to set off a word of unusual meaning or an unfamiliar, excessively slangy, or coined word the first time it is used. Commonly known facts and proverbial, biblical, and well-known literary expressions do not need to be enclosed in quotation marks. Do not use single quotation marks unless included in a quotation. Single quotation marks enclose quotations within quotations; double marks, quotations within these; and so on.

Capitalization

IJAM uses headline style for all titles (i.e. the first and last words in titles and subtitles are capitalized as well as all other major words). Only acronyms should appear in all capital letters (after one spelled-out use). Civil, military, religious, and professional titles and titles of nobility are capitalized only when they immediately precede a personal name and are thus used as part of the name. Article and section titles of any kind should be capitalized in the title case.

Italics

Italicize the names of books, newspapers, and journals; please do not underline them. Italics are used for isolated words and phrases in a foreign language if they are likely to be unfamiliar to readers. Foreign words or phrases familiar to most readers and listed in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition (for example, laissez-faire is not italicized if used in an English context). Italics may be used for emphasis and on the first occurrence; thereafter they are best set in Roman.

Citations, References, And Notes

Manuscripts should follow the IJAM style guidelines based on a simplified Author-Date Chicago Style (see https://gestiondesarts.hec.ca/en/ijam/ijam-style-guide/). Specific questions about style issues can be addressed at https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-2.html.
Citations within the text should consist of the author’s last name and year of publication with no intervening comma, enclosed within parentheses, and should be inserted before punctuation or at a logical break in the sentence. If several citations are needed, they should be presented alphabetically and separated by semicolons. A page number should be given only in the case of a direct citation. If the author’s name has just been given in the text, the year in parentheses is sufficient. If two or more works by an author were published in the same year, they should be distinguished with a, b, etc., after the year. For works by four or more authors, “et al.” should be used and not italicized.
References should be double-spaced and presented at the final end of the manuscript before Tables and Figures.
Notes should be numbered consecutively and double-spaced on a separate, attached sheet.

Language

IJAM encourages all authors to choose a language that is inclusive and respectful. Submissions should not contain anything that might imply that one individual is superior to another on the grounds of race, gender, culture, sexuality, or any other characteristic, and inclusive language should be used throughout. Authors should ensure that writing is free from bias, preferably by using the singular gender-neutral “they, theirs or them,” rather than “he or she,” “his or hers,” or “him or her.”

IJAM uses a simplified version of Author-Date Chicago Style. The text below is adapted from https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org. More precise information and examples are available at https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-2.html.

Papers should be written in English. It is the responsibility of the author(s) to ensure that the paper has been proofread and copyedited for language. Manuscripts may be rejected if the language is not acceptable.

Tables, Figures, Charts, Appendices

Reference List

In-text citation for a list of up to three authors:

(Armstrong and Malacinski 1989; Beigl 1989; Pickett and White 1985)
(Whittaker 1967, 1975; Wiens 1989a, 1989b)
(Wong 1999, 328; 2000, 475; García 1998, 67)
(Keng, Lin, and Orazem 2017)

In-text citation for a list of four authors or more:

(Bay et al. 2017)

IJAM uses hyphens between inclusive numbers.

Example: 17-24

Reference List

1. Journal Article

Issue Number with a Month or Season

Keng, Shao-Hsun, Chun-Hung Lin, and Peter F. Orazem. 2017. “Expanding College Access in Taiwan, 1978–2014: Effects on Graduate Quality and Income Inequality.” Journal of Human Capital 11, no. 1 (Spring): 1-34.

Issue Number but not a Month or Season

Glass, Jennifer, and Philip Levchak. 2014. “Red States, Blue States, and Divorce: Understanding the Impact of Conservative Protestantism on Regional Variation in Divorce Rates.” American Journal of Sociology 119 (4): 1002-46.

Month or Season but no Issue Number

Gunderson, Alex R., and Manuel Leal. 2015. “Patterns of Thermal Constraint on Ectotherm Activity.” American Naturalist 185 (May): 653-64.

No Issue Number, Month, or Season

Gunderson, Alex R., and Manuel Leal. 2015. “Patterns of Thermal Constraint on Ectotherm Activity.” American Naturalist 185:653-64.

For a French Reference, the Title of the Article and the Journal Title Are Not Capitalized.

Poisson-De Haro, Serge, and Emmanuel Coblence. 2013. “Les sentiers du redressement: une étude comparative d’organisations culturelles en crise.” Revue française de gestion 39 (235): 29-51.

1. Books

Grazer, Brian, and Charles Fishman. 2015. A Curious Mind: The Secret to a Bigger Life. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Smith, Zadie. 2016. Swing Time. New York: Penguin Press.

Titles in a language other than English keeps the language and capital letters of the original title.

Zwirner, Anke. 2012. Finanzierung und Förderung von Kinospielfilmen in Deutschland. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

Chapter or Part of an Edited Book

Thoreau, Henry David. 2016. “Walking.” In The Making of the American Essay, edited by John D’Agata, 167-95. Minneapolis: Graywolf Press.

Translated Book

Lahiri, Jhumpa. 2016. In Other Words. Translated by Ann Goldstein. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

III. NEWS OR MAGAZINE ARTICLE

Manjoo, Farhad. 2017. “Snap Makes a Bet on the Cultural Supremacy of the Camera.” New York Times, March 8, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/technology/snap-makes-a-bet-on-the-cultural-supremacy-of-the-camera.html.

In-text citation: (Manjoo 2017)

Mead, Rebecca. 2017. “The Prophet of Dystopia.” New Yorker, April 17, 2017.

In-text citation: (Mead 2017, 43)  [if the author refers to a quote on a specific page, here p. 43]

Pai, Tanya. 2017. “The Sticky, Sugary History of Peeps.” Vox, April 11, 2017. http://www.vox.com/culture/2017/4/11/15209084/peeps-easter.

In-text citation: (Pai 2017)

Pegoraro, Rob. 2007. “Apple’s iPhone Is Sleek, Smart and Simple.” Washington Post, July 5, 2007. LexisNexis Academic.

In-text citation: (Pegoraro 2007)

Readers’ comments are cited in the text but omitted from a reference list.

In-text citation: (Eduardo B [Los Angeles], March 9, 2017, comment on Manjoo 2017)

1. Book Review

Kakutani, Michiko. 2016. “Friendship Takes a Path That Diverges.” Review of Swing Time, by Zadie Smith. New York Times, November 7, 2016.

In-text citation: (Kakutani 2016)

1. Others

Interview

Stamper, Kory. 2017. “From ‘F-Bomb’ to ‘Photobomb,’ How the Dictionary Keeps Up with English.” Interview by Terry Gross. Fresh Air, NPR, April 19, 2017. Audio, 35:25. http://www.npr.org/2017/04/19/524618639/from-f-bomb-to-photobomb-how-the-dictionary-keeps-up-with-english.

In-text citation: (Stamper 2017)

Thesis or Dissertation

Rutz, Cynthia Lillian. 2013. “King Lear and Its Folktale Analogues.” PhD diss., University of Chicago.

In-text citation: (Rutz 2013, 99-100) [if the author refers to a quote on a specific page, here pp. 99-100]

Website Content

Bouman, Katie. 2016. “How to Take a Picture of a Black Hole.” Filmed November 2016 at TEDxBeaconStreet, Brookline, MA. Video, 12:51. https://www.ted.com/talks/katie_bouman_what_does_a_black_hole_look_like.

Google. 2017. “Privacy Policy.” Privacy & Terms. Last modified April 17, 2017. https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/.

Yale University. n.d. “About Yale: Yale Facts.” Accessed May 1, 2017. https://www.yale.edu/about-yale/yale-facts.

Social Media Content

• Citations of content shared through social media can usually be limited to the text, as in this example:

Conan O’Brien’s tweet was characteristically deadpan: “In honor of Earth Day, I’m recycling my tweets” (@ConanOBrien, April 22, 2015).

• If a more formal citation is needed, a reference list entry may be appropriate. In place of a title, quote up to the first 160 characters of the post.

Chicago Manual of Style. 2015. “Is the world ready for singular they? We thought so back in 1993.” Facebook, April 17, 2015. https://www.facebook.com/ChicagoManual/posts/10152906193679151.

Souza, Pete (@petesouza). 2016. “President Obama bids farewell to President Xi of China at the conclusion of the Nuclear Security Summit.” Instagram photo, April 1, 2016. https://www.instagram.com/p/BDrmfXTtNCt/.

• Comments can usually be cited in the text, in reference to the related post.

1. Jim, February 16, 2017, comment on Germano, “Futurist Shock,” http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2017/02/15/futurist-shock/#comment-3158909472.
   2. Stephanos C, February 21, 2017, reply to Jim, http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2017/02/15/futurist-shock/#comment-3167173570.

IJAM’s annual award honors outstanding referees and editorial board members. Award winners continually provide thoughtful, timely, and developmental reviews. The IJAM Outstanding reviewers will be selected by the Editorial team based on service from the previous volume. Award winners will be recognized each year in the Journal and through social media.

2022 Reviewer of the Year: Dr. Carsten Baumgarth, Berlin School of Economics and Law, Germany

2023 Reviewer of the Year: Dr. Marek Prokupek, KEDGE Business School, France

IJAM introduces a new reward system to stimulate authors and contributors to publish more and newer articles in the Journal. The Editor in chief will select an article for each issue, and a special mention for the one considered the “best article” in the issue will be introduced.

Guidelines For the Editors and editorial Members

Editorial Policies

International Journal of Arts Management (IJAM) relies on the integrity and intellectual honesty of its Editors to publish manuscripts that conform to the ethical standards and meet all the requirements for

publication, as per the mission of the journal, maintaining the highest standards of ethics and

supporting ethical research practices. The Editors of the International Journal of Arts Management (IJAM) trust independent knowledge and the benefits of ethical behavior. IJAM encourages its Editors to follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) "Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors".

Peer Review

IJAM relies on the double-blind peer review process to assess the quality of the manuscript to be published. Manuscripts are reviewed by two independent experts in the relevant area. The Journal follows a double- blind review process, in which the author identities are unknown to the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. The editor considers the manuscript and the reviewers’ comments before making a final decision either to accept, accept with revision, or reject a manuscript. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines on the peer review process can be found here and Guidelines for the reviewers can be found here.

Authorship and Plagiarism 

IJAM expects all published articles to contain clear and accurate attribution of authorship. It is the responsibility of the author to ensure that all the authors that contributed to the work are fairly acknowledged and that the published author list accurately reflects individual contributions. The Journal expects that references made in a manuscript or article to another person’s work or idea will be credited appropriately. Re-use of text, data, figures, or images without appropriate acknowledgment or permission is considered plagiarism, as is the paraphrasing of text, concepts, and ideas without crediting the source. IJAM also considers "self-plagiarism" as a form of plagiarism. An example of self-plagiarism would be when an author borrows from his or her own previously published work without the proper citation. All allegations of plagiarism are investigated by COPE guidelines and the manuscripts found to have plagiarism are rejected.

Literature Cited

Given the pivotal role of IJAM articles in shaping the current state of scientific knowledge authors are encouraged to exercise fairness and discretion in their choice of references. It is imperative that bibliographic details, such as dates and page numbers, are accurately provided. Only papers of genuine significance should be referenced; citations of marginal relevance or from predatory or pseudo-journals should be avoided. Authors should refrain from including unpublished materials, including data, code, or unpublished manuscripts, unless absolutely necessary. In such cases, authors must explicitly state the material's unpublished status and address data availability as needed. Retracted publications should never be cited; instead, references to retraction notices should be made. Moreover, if an erratum, correction, or editorial expression of concern has been issued for a reference, it must be duly noted in the bibliography.

Copyright

IJAM secures explicit rights from each author essential for the organized publication of its journals. Consequently, we request every author to sign a statement transferring complete and exclusive rights to their article, encompassing all tables and illustrations, to IJAM. Should authors necessitate an alternative copyright arrangement due to their affiliation or funding, we encourage them to reach out to the Production Editor for further guidance.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors are expected to disclose any conflicts or financial interests impacting the outcome of the study in which he/she or they are involved. These include affiliations, funding, or financial holdings that may be viewed as affecting the objectivity of the review. Such factors may include, although they are not limited to, employment, professional affiliations, paid consultancies, membership in related advocacy organizations, board memberships, funding, support, and/or grants received within the past three years, significant financial holdings, or patents. A potential bias does not mean that the work presented has been compromised, nor does it disqualify authors from publication but potential conflicts must be presented to readers. If the manuscript is accepted, the Conflict-of-Interest information will be communicated in a published statement. COPE guidelines on conflict of interest can be found here. In-house submissions that contain the work of any editorial board member, are not allowed to be reviewed by that editorial board member, and all decisions regarding this manuscript are made by an independent editor, through the support of two reviewers.

Promoting ethical research

IJAM aims to ensure that the published research is conducted fairly and ethically. Each research area has its standards and methods of governing research practice. These guidelines may vary from country to country and country-specific guidelines need to be followed. Wherever appropriate, IJAM expects published research based on human subjects and needs, to provide the name of the local ethics committee that approved the study or prove the study conforms to recognized standards (e.g., declaration of Helsinki or US Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects). International Journal of Arts Management follows the latest Core Practice Guidelines for Editors and Journal publishers as outlined by the COPE.

Procedures and Inquiries

IJAM holds its editors and authors to high ethical standards, but occasionally situations arise that necessitate further discussion. If you have concerns regarding ethical conduct, your initial point of contact will likely be the IJAM Editor(s) in-Chief (email to ijam@hec.ca), who can provide guidance on the formal procedure for submitting, reviewing, and processing ethics complaints. Allegations of research or publication misconduct undergo a rigorous investigation by qualified individuals, including members of the Editorial Team, the Editor(s)-in-Chief, and the Associate Editors of IJAM, ensuring fairness and timeliness. Complaints against IJAM staff are evaluated by the University Human Resources department. Manuscripts identified as plagiarized during the initial stages of review are promptly rejected and are not entertained for publication in the journal. However, should plagiarism be detected post-publication, the Editor(s)-in-Chief will initiate a preliminary investigation, potentially involving a specially appointed committee. Should misconduct be confirmed, IJAM will take appropriate action, including the publication of a statement linked bi-directionally online to and from the original paper to acknowledge the plagiarism and provide a reference to the plagiarized material.

Correcting the Record

When an author identifies a substantial error or inaccuracy in their published work, it is their responsibility to promptly inform the Editor(s)-in-Chief and Associate Editor(s) and collaborate with them to rectify or retract the paper. Similarly, if a third party alleges a significant error in a published work, the author must either amend or withdraw the paper or present evidence supporting the accuracy of the article.