Advice for a Successful Submission

Selecting the Appropriate Journal

Selecting an appropriate journal is one of the most important factors in a successful submission. Authors should carefully evaluate whether a manuscript aligns with a journal’s editorial scope, intended audience, methodological expectations, and typical style of contribution.

Authors are encouraged to carefully review the editorial statements of the journal (and area/department where applicable) before submission. See Journals, Editorial Areas & Research Communities to explore the breadth of the INFORMS journal portfolio, identify relevant editorial areas and research communities, and find the right journal for your research.

Not every paper is suitable for every journal, even within the same discipline. Submitting a manuscript that falls outside the journal’s intended scope is likely to result in rejection and may introduce unnecessary delays in communicating the work to the research community.

Authors are also encouraged to read papers recently published in the journal to which they intend to submit their work. Differences in style, methodology, or contribution expectations may indicate that another journal would be a more appropriate outlet. For example, a journal that rarely publishes empirical survey research may not be an appropriate venue for a purely survey-based study, while a journal focused primarily on theoretical or mathematical contributions may not be the best fit for a largely qualitative implementation study.

Presenting a Clear & Meaningful Contribution

The title and abstract should clearly describe the problem being addressed and summarize the primary findings and contributions of the work. Whenever possible, authors should provide specific and meaningful descriptions of results rather than broad or generalized claims. For example, statements such as “We show that our algorithm can solve instances with 40,000 nodes in less than one hour of CPU time” are generally more informative than statements such as “We solve large instances of the problem.”

The introduction and conclusions should be written for a broad scholarly audience rather than only for specialists working directly in the area. The introduction should clearly explain the contribution of the manuscript to both the literature and the problem being addressed, allowing editors and reviewers to assess the novelty, relevance, and significance of the work efficiently. Authors are encouraged to consider why readers within the journal’s audience would find the manuscript valuable and relevant.

Similarly, the conclusions should summarize the principal contributions of the work in language accessible to a broad audience. Conclusions should also clearly acknowledge limitations of the study and identify potential directions for future research.

Literature reviews should focus on the most relevant and foundational prior work related to the manuscript. Authors should ensure that important contributions in the field are appropriately acknowledged and discussed while maintaining a clear focus on the specific scholarly context of the paper. At the conclusion of the literature review, editors and reviewers should have a clear understanding of how the manuscript contributes to the existing body of knowledge.

Authors should clearly cite their own related work and clearly distinguish the contribution of the current manuscript from prior publications. Failure to appropriately identify overlapping material or prior related work may raise concerns regarding duplicate publication or self-plagiarism. Authors are encouraged to review the applicable publication ethics and originality policies before submission.

Authors are encouraged to present manuscripts as concisely and clearly as possible and to avoid unnecessary notation or exposition. Concise manuscripts are generally easier to review effectively and efficiently, particularly when mathematical or technical material is presented as clearly and directly as possible.

To the extent appropriate for the research, figures and graphs should be used to summarize important findings and to illustrate models, computational results, or algorithms. Visual presentation of key results often improves clarity and helps reviewers and readers more readily understand the contribution and implications of the work.

Authors should ensure that manuscripts are carefully written, organized, and proofread prior to submission. Even when the underlying contribution is significant, manuscripts that are not clearly written or well organized may be more difficult to evaluate. Authors who would benefit from language or technical editing assistance may wish to consult available editorial support services prior to submission.

Responding to Peer Review

When responding to reviewer comments, authors are encouraged to carefully evaluate the feedback provided by both reviewers and editors. Not every reviewer request necessarily requires a corresponding change to the manuscript, particularly when reviewer recommendations conflict or when requested revisions fall outside the intended scope of the work.

When authors elect not to implement a particular suggestion, they should briefly and professionally explain their reasoning in the response to reviewers. Authors should also clearly identify or highlight revisions made to the manuscript when submitting a revised version for further consideration.

Supporting the Scholarly Review Process

Peer review depends upon the active participation of the scholarly community. Authors who submit manuscripts for review are encouraged to contribute to the review process by serving as reviewers when called upon to do so.

Identifying qualified and willing reviewers is one of the most significant sources of delay in scholarly publishing. Securing the reviews needed to evaluate a manuscript often requires editors and associate editors to contact multiple prospective reviewers. A healthy and effective peer review system depends upon reciprocal participation by members of the research community.