Guidelines for Reviewers and Editors

The INFORMS journal Marketing Science 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, editors and reviewers must 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 Marketing Science include but are not limited to the following:

General Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers

1. Punctuality: Any referee who feels unqualified to review an assigned manuscript or unable to provide a prompt review should notify the editor-in-chief, area editor, or associate editor to be excused from the review process.
2. 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 editor-in-chief or area editor.
3. Standards of Objectivity: Reviews shall contain no personal criticism of authors. Reviewers should clearly express their views with supporting arguments, and reviews should be conducted objectively and constructively.
4. Acknowledgment of Sources: Authors should cite relevant sources. Reviewers should 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 works, the editor-in-chief, senior editor, or associate editor must be notified promptly. Editors will refer to INFORMS Policies & Procedures regarding plagiarism (INFORMS POLICY & PROCEDURES, NUMBER 13.8.1 PLAGIARISM) to identify and react to accusations of plagiarism.
5. Conflict of Interest: It is the authors' responsibility to suggest review team members (SE, AE, reviewers) that do not have a conflict of interest. The editors reserve the right to ask the authors to withdraw the paper if authors do not take this seriously. Similarly, if a reviewer discovers a conflict of interest with an assigned manuscript, it is her/his responsibility to let the Senior Editor know immediately. A conflict of interest arises when there is a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship or connection between the authors and reviewers that could compromise an independent and fair peer review process.
6. Marketing Science Generative AI Guidelines for Reviewers and Editors: Generative AI presents many opportunities and challenges to the Marketing Science community. When it comes to the review process, there is a risk that such technology (if used without careful thought) will generate incorrect, incomplete, or biased reports and outcomes. These considerations, together with the principle that submitted manuscripts are to be treated as confidential documents, result in the Marketing Science Generative AI guidelines for reviewers and editors:
   • All opinions expressed by each member of the review team (reviewers, Associate Editor, Senior Editor) should be theirs and theirs only.
   • The author of any referee report is responsible for the accuracy of all facts and references cited in the report. The detection of inaccurate information in a referee report could lead to (a) removal of the referee from the editorial board of Marketing Science (if applicable) at the discretion of the EIC and/or (b) it being treated as a potential ethical violation (details on the due process regarding such violations can be found here).
   • Members of the review team should not deliberately upload a manuscript submitted to Marketing Science (or any portion of the manuscript) into a Generative AI tool in a way that might lead to violations of copyright and/or confidentiality.

Revised April 24, 2026