Published for the first time in the fall of 1998, the International Journal of Arts Management has quickly become essential reading for the arts management community. All papers are subject to a double blind refereeing process.

Each issue is approximately 100 pages in length and covers a wide range of topics and viewpoints of direct interest to academics and practitioners. All articles meet the highest standards of intellectual rigour.

This section provides information on the specific aims of the Journal, on the editor and his editorial board.

Visitors interested in submitting an article will find everything they need to know here. See Contributors’ guidelines section below.

If you wish to order the most recent issue, please e-mail us directly at ijam@hec.ca and we will respond as soon as possible.

JOURNAL INFORMATION

IJAM is a non-profit project, published by HEC Montréal’s Carmelle and Rémi Marcoux Chair in Arts Management in partnership with SDA Bocconi, Arts and Culture Knowledge Centre. HEC Montréal is the oldest business school in Canada, and is affiliated with the Université de Montréal.

SDA Bocconi

Carmelle and Rémi Marcoux Chair in Arts Management

If you would like information not found on this site, please e-mail us directly and we will respond as soon as possible.

IJAM is published 3 times a year, in fall, winter and spring.
ISSN: 1480-8986

AIMS

  • Offers insight into management processes, and the ways in which arts organizations operate within the various disciplines of management, including marketing, human resources, finance, accounting, production and operation processes, and administration;
  • Identifies and encourages the development of best practices in the management of culture and the arts, and promotes their use through the publication of case studies and analyses;
  • Addresses current issues of key relevance to cultural and arts organizations in a rigorous and detailed fashion;
  • Presents studies, measurements, and other empirical research in the field of arts and cultural management;
  • Provides a forum for challenging and debating coherent theories and models, as well as their application in cultural and arts practice

Contributors’ guidelines

The International Journal of Arts Management (IJAM) is dedicated to advancing theory and practice in the arts management field. Published for the first time in the fall of 1998, IJAM has quickly become globally essential reading for the arts management community.

All manuscripts submitted to IJAM are subject to a double-blind refereeing process. IJAM Editorial team takes pride in our rigorous review process. Although the Journal strives for rigor, it also seeks to provide quality service to our contributors. Operationally, this means IJAM tries to offer high-quality, timely feedback. The standard time for full peer review is typically less than 90 days from receipt of a manuscript to the first Editor’s decision. If our internal editorial review concludes a manuscript is not suitable for full peer review, then we usually have a decision for authors within 14 days after submission of a manuscript.

IJAM encourages submissions from both scholars and practitioners. Regardless of the affiliations of authors, readers value research informed by practice and practice informed by research. The Journal also encourages scholars and practitioners to consider co-authorship as a means for co-producing relevant, timely, and quality research.

IJAM welcomes original manuscripts for its four main sections:

  • IJAM Research Papers
  • IJAM Case Studies
  • IJAM Book Reviews
  • IJAM Practitioners’ Perspectives

Research Papers

IJAM Editors-in-Chief: Alex Turrini and Jennifer Wiggins

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

Case Studies

IJAM Associate Editor: Philippe Ravanas

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. As soon as the case and teaching have been finalized, they 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.

IJAM Book Reviews

IJAM Associate Editor: Ruth Rentschler

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/or 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.

Practitioner Perspectives

IJAM Associate Editor: Antonio C. Cuyler

Practitioner Perspectives Guidelines

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 5,000 and 7,000 words in length including the teaching notes (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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. The article will then be published in the next available issue of the IJAM.

How to submit a manuscript for the IJAM

All papers should be submitted electronically, preferably in Microsoft Word, to ijam@hec.ca. If you are recommending reviewing specific books or you are a publisher, please send an email to ijam@hec.ca. We will forward this to the book review editor.

Papers should be written in English.

General Information on Manuscript Formatting
All submissions should be typewritten and double-spaced. All material should be 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.

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.

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.

Quotations
The 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 are run into 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.

Capitalization
When in doubt, do not capitalize. 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.

Notes and References/Citations
Manuscripts should follow the style guidelines in the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition, using the Author-Date method of citing and referencing. Specific questions about style issues can be addressed at http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html.

Notes should be numbered consecutively and double-spaced on a separate, attached sheet. Citations within the text should consist of the author’s last name and year of publication, 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 if necessary. 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. References should be double-spaced and presented at the final end of the manuscript before Tables and Figures.

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, for instance by using ‘he or she’, ‘his or hers’, ‘him or her’, or the singular gender-neutral ‘they, theirs or them’.

Best Reviewer award

IJAM introduces an annual award honoring 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 January 1 through December 31. Award winners will be recognized each year in the Journal and through social media.

2021 Best Reviewer: Dr. Carsten Baumgarth, Berlin School of Economics and Law, Germany

Editor’s Choice article

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.

Ethical guidelines for IJAM and COPE affiliation

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”.

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.

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.

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. 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.

Abstracting and Indexing

Impact Factor:

Impact Factor

Journal Citation Reports / Social Sciences Edition, ISSN 1480-8986

The International Journal of Arts Management is also indexed in the following:

  • Arts and Humanities Citation Index®
  • Current Contents® /Arts & Humanities
  • Social Sciences Citation Index ®
  • Journal Citation Reports / Social Sciences Edition
  • Current Contents® / Social and Behavioral Sciences
  • Proquest/ABI INFORM
  • EBSCO
  • JSTOR

IJAM Editorial Board

The International Journal of Arts Management is overseen by an international editorial board of leading academics, practitioners and consultants.

IJAM Editorial Board

IJAM Editorial Team