Guidelines for Ethical Behavior in Publishing

The INFORMS journal [Journal Name] is a peer-reviewed journal. All parties involved in publishing an article in this journal (editors, peer reviewers, authors, and publisher) must follow appropriate guidelines for ethical behavior. In general, it is critical that editors and reviewers maintain objectivity and confidentiality and manage potential conflicts of interest; authors must be honest and disclose their sources and funders. More precisely, to assure high-quality publications, public trust in scientific findings, and proper credit for ideas and results, ethical standards for publication in [Journal Name] include but are not limited to the following:

1. General Duties and Responsibilities of Editors

   1. Editorial Appointment and Scope

      1. Appointment

         Editors-in-chief are appointed by the INFORMS Board of Directors. Any concerns regarding conduct of the editor-in-chief should be directed to the INFORMS vice president of publications. [Editorial roles] serve at the discretion of the editor-in-chief, and any concerns regarding their conduct should be directed to the editor-in-chief.
         ▲ Back to Top

      2. Journal Policies and Procedures

         Editors-in-chief and their editorial boards hold primary responsibility for establishing and upholding the editorial scope, content, and policies of the journal. They develop and apply journal-specific practices that support the mission of the publication, while operating within INFORMS Policies and Procedures — established by the INFORMS Board of Directors — covering publication ethics, editorial board governance, and other aspects of journal oversight. The editor-in-chief will continually assess the effects of journal policies on author and reviewer behavior, revising policies as needed to encourage responsible conduct and to discourage misconduct.
         ▲ Back to Top

      3. Intellectual Breadth and Editorial Stewardship

         Editors-in-chief and their editorial boards are responsible for supporting the scholarly integrity of the journal by encouraging a broad spectrum of perspectives, methodologies, and scholarly voices from across the global research community. Editorial decisions must reflect a commitment to fairness, professional integrity, and openness to innovative ideas and rigorous debate.
         ▲ Back to Top

   2. Editorial Decision-Making and Ethical Standards

      1. Publication Decisions and Editorial Integrity

         The editor-in-chief and [associate/senior/area/department] are responsible for determining which manuscripts are best suited for publication. Editorial decisions will be based on importance, originality, clarity, and the study’s validity and relevance to the journal’s editorial statement, as informed by the peer review of submitted manuscripts. [Journal Name] will never consider an author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy in making editorial decisions. The recommendations of the [editorial roles] and reviewers are non-binding.
         ▲ Back to Top

      2. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

         To ensure accountability and transparency, the editor-in-chief will establish systems for managing conflicts of interest for him- or herself, staff, authors, reviewers, and editorial board members.
         ▲ Back to Top

   3. Peer Review Management and Confidentiality

      1. Peer Review

         [Journal Name] uses a double-anonymous peer review process. Authors’ identities are not disclosed to reviewers, and reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to authors. Reviewer comments to editors are strictly confidential, and comments shared with authors will be made anonymous. The names of the reviewers will be known only to the [editorial roles] and will remain confidential to authors and other reviewers. The names of the authors will be known only to the [editorial roles] and will remain confidential to reviewers. [MKSC only] In some cases, such as Frontiers submissions, the associate editor’s identity may be disclosed to reviewers as part of the review coordination process. [OPRE only] Authors are informed of the identity of the area editor, but not the associate editor or reviewers. For details on INFORMS’ commitment to double-anonymous peer review, including author guidelines and journal-specific practices, see the INFORMS Peer Review Policy and Journal Practices.
         ▲ Back to Top

      2. Confidentiality

         The editor-in-chief, [editorial roles], and any editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher.
         ▲ Back to Top

   4. Editorial Response to Misconduct and Post-Publication Concerns

      1. Allegations of Misconduct

         It is the editor-in-chief’s responsibility to investigate credible allegations of misconduct — including plagiarism, data falsification, and duplicate publication — in a timely and confidential manner, in accordance with INFORMS Policies and Procedures regarding publication ethics.
         ▲ Back to Top

      2. Fundamental Errors in Published Works

         It is the editor-in-chief’s responsibility to promptly investigate accusations of errors in published work and to ensure that corrections and retractions are published in an accurate and timely manner. Editors will refer to the INFORMS Post-Publication Corrections and Critiques policy when assessing concerns and determining whether a correction, errata, or retraction is warranted.
         ▲ Back to Top

2. General Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers

   1. Engagement and Communication

      1. Conflict of Interest

         If a reviewer discovers a conflict of interest with an assigned manuscript — such as a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship or connection with any of the authors, companies, or institutions — the [appropriate editor] must be notified promptly so the reviewer may be excused from the review process.
         ▲ Back to Top

      2. Punctuality and Responsiveness

         Any reviewer who feels unqualified to review an assigned manuscript or unable to provide a prompt review should immediately notify the [appropriate editor] to be excused from the review process. Reviewers are also expected to communicate in a timely manner with editors regarding delays, clarifications, or issues that may affect their ability to complete the review.
         ▲ Back to Top

   2. Confidentiality and Objectivity

      1. Confidentiality

         Private information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal advantage. Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Information contained in a submitted manuscript must not be shown to or discussed with others without written permission of the [appropriate editor].
         ▲ Back to Top

      2. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Review Process

         Submitted manuscripts are confidential documents and must be treated accordingly by reviewers and editors. Manuscripts, or any portion thereof, may not be uploaded into generative AI systems — whether cloud-based or local — if the system stores data or uses inputs for training. This restriction protects the privacy, intellectual property, and scholarly integrity of submitted work. AI tools may only be used in the review process if they do not retain, share, or train on manuscript content, and if they fully comply with INFORMS confidentiality standards. All members of the review team remain fully responsible for the content, reasoning, and accuracy of their reports.
         ▲ Back to Top

   3. Review Conduct and Scholarly Integrity

      1. Standards of Objectivity

         Reviews must not include personal criticism of authors. Reviewers are expected to express their views clearly, support their arguments, and conduct their evaluations objectively and constructively.
         ▲ Back to Top

      2. Acknowledgment of Sources

         Reviewers are encouraged to identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. If a reviewer finds any substantial similarity or overlap between the submitted manuscript and any other published work, the [appropriate editor] must be notified promptly. Editors will refer to INFORMS Policies and Procedures regarding publication ethics to investigate and respond to potential misconduct.
         ▲ Back to Top

3. General Duties and Responsibilities of Authors

   1. Integrity of Research and Reporting

      1. Reporting Standards

         Authors of original manuscripts should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately, and all data in the article should be real and authentic. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior.
         ▲ Back to Top

      2. Originality and Plagiarism

         Authors must ensure that submitted manuscripts represent original work. Manuscripts must not contain copied or paraphrased material from other sources without proper citation, nor substantial overlap with the authors’ own previously published work unless fully disclosed and appropriately referenced. Submissions must not have been published elsewhere or be under consideration by another journal. INFORMS considers plagiarism — including self-plagiarism, duplicate publication, and concurrent submission — a serious violation of publication ethics. Editors will refer to INFORMS Policies and Procedures regarding publication ethics to investigate and respond to potential misconduct.
         ▲ Back to Top

      3. Acknowledgment of Sources

         Authors must properly acknowledge the work of others. Relevant publications that have influenced the development of the submitted work should be cited appropriately.
         ▲ Back to Top

      4. Manipulation of Citations

         Including citations in a submitted manuscript with the primary purpose of increasing the number of citations to a given author’s work or to articles published in a particular journal constitutes unethical behavior.
         ▲ Back to Top

      5. Falsification and Fabrication

         Falsifying or fabricating data, results, or findings — including numerical, experimental, textual, or qualitative material — in a submitted manuscript constitutes unethical behavior.
         ▲ Back to Top

      6. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)

         Authors are welcome to use generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the preparation of their manuscripts. However, such tools may not be listed as authors. Authors bear full responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the submitted work, regardless of whether AI tools were used in its creation. Submission of a manuscript constitutes a declaration that any AI-generated content has been reviewed, verified, and appropriately edited by the author(s).
         ▲ Back to Top

   2. Data and Transparency

      1. Data Access and Retention

         Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a manuscript for editorial review, should be prepared to provide access to such data, and should retain such data for a reasonable time after publication, sufficient to support verification or replication by others.
         ▲ Back to Top

      2. Acknowledgment of Funding Sources

         Authors must acknowledge all funding sources that supported the research reported in the manuscript. It is also the authors’ responsibility to comply with any publishing mandates required by their funding organizations.
         ▲ Back to Top

   3. Authorship and Contributor Roles

      1. Authorship

         Authorship must be limited to individuals who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All such contributors should be listed as co-authors. Others who have participated in specific substantive aspects of the research should be appropriately acknowledged or listed as contributors. Authors should consult the INFORMS Authorship policy for additional guidance on authorship eligibility, responsibilities, and contributor recognition.
         ▲ Back to Top

      2. Submitting and Corresponding Authors

         The submitting author is responsible for communicating with the journal during the publication process and for ensuring that all appropriate co-authors — and no inappropriate co-authors — are included on the manuscript. The submitting author must also confirm that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and have agreed to its submission for publication. The corresponding author, as designated in the published article, serves as the primary point of contact for readers and editors after publication. This author should be prepared to respond to questions about the research and findings and to facilitate any necessary post-publication communication.
         ▲ Back to Top

   4. Disclosure and Accountability

      1. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

         Authors must disclose all sources of financial support for the research, as well as any personal, professional, or institutional conflicts of interest that could reasonably be perceived to influence the results or interpretation of the manuscript. [MKSC only] See Competing Interest Policy here.
         ▲ Back to Top

      2. Fundamental Errors in Published Works

         It is the author’s responsibility to promptly notify the editor-in-chief or [appropriate editor] if they discover — or are made aware of — a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, so that the journal can issue a correction or retraction as appropriate. Authors should consult the INFORMS Post-Publication Corrections and Critiques policy to understand how post-publication concerns are reviewed and addressed by the journal.
         ▲ Back to Top

   5. Submission Conduct

      1. Peer Review

         Peer review is the foundation of the journal publication process. By submitting a manuscript, an author agrees to be an active and responsive participant by responding promptly and appropriately to reviewer comments. For details on INFORMS’ commitment to double-anonymous peer review, including author guidelines and journal-specific practices, see the INFORMS Peer Review Policy and Journal Practices.
         ▲ Back to Top

      2. Redundant, Concurrent, or Multiple Publications

         Authors must not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. If authors have used their own previously published work — or work that is currently under review — as the basis for a submitted manuscript, they are required to cite the previous work and explain how the submission offers novel contributions beyond the earlier work. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals concurrently constitutes unethical behavior. Authors must also disclose related or overlapping work by collaborators or others, including manuscripts that share similar content, methods, or findings. Redundant publications include the inappropriate division of study outcomes into multiple articles. Manuscripts found to have been published elsewhere, to be under review elsewhere, or to include undisclosed overlap will be subject to the procedures and penalties outlined in INFORMS Policies and Procedures regarding publication ethics.
         ▲ Back to Top

      3. Resubmission of Rejected Papers

         It is the author’s responsibility to review and adhere to any journal-specific policies regarding the resubmission of previously rejected manuscripts. If resubmission is permitted, authors must provide a detailed explanation of how the revised manuscript addresses the concerns raised in the earlier review. Failure to disclose prior submission history or to follow resubmission protocols may be considered a breach of publication ethics.
         ▲ Back to Top

Consequences of Ethical Violations

INFORMS takes violations of these ethical guidelines seriously. In cases of confirmed misconduct, the organization reserves the right to reject the infringing manuscript, reject other submissions by the author(s), prohibit future submissions to any INFORMS journal, and/or remove the author(s) from editorial board service. In particularly egregious cases, additional sanctions may be imposed. For details, see the INFORMS Policies and Procedures regarding publication ethics.
▲ Back to Top

Publisher Commitment

INFORMS is committed to supporting ethical publishing practices, protecting editorial independence, and maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. Editors-in-chief are responsible for managing the editorial content of each journal, and INFORMS supports their authority and decision-making. In partnership with editors, INFORMS also oversees the publication process and is responsible for issuing corrections or retractions when needed. Ultimate authority over INFORMS journals rests with the INFORMS Board of Directors, with general supervision delegated to the vice president of publications in consultation with the Publications Committee.
▲ Back to Top

Related Policies

For complete publication policies and procedures, including processes for appeals, corrections, and editorial governance, please refer to Section 13 of the INFORMS Policies and Procedures.
▲ Back to Top

Updated May 28, 2025.