Submission Guidelines

Preparing Your Manuscript

Generative AI Guidelines

Generative AI Technologies: OR does not believe that any AI technology can be responsible for decision-making in the review process; the critical thinking required to evaluate a manuscript necessitates its review by experts in the field. OR’s generative AI policy for reviewers and editors states that:

Submitted manuscripts, as well as any material specific to a reviewer report or decision letter, must be treated by reviewers and editors as confidential and may therefore not be uploaded to public-access generative AI technology . Materials posted openly (e.g., papers and images from papers on arXiv, SSRN, author web site, etc.) may be uploaded into public access generative AI technology to assist in the review process.

AI-driven techniques that conform to the RELX Responsible AI Principles and that preserve the privacy of submitted materials may be used for all papers during the review process, especially to support plagiarism checks.

The Area Editor, Associate Editor, and reviewers are all responsible for their final report, and the accuracy and reasoning therein. All reports to authors must correctly represent the considered opinion of the reviewer/ Associate Editor/ Area Editor.

Submission Types

There are 4 types of submissions: Focused Technical, Context and Challenge, Regular Manuscripts, and Lengthy Manuscripts. The final published manuscript does not designate the submission category in the title.

1. A focused technical paper is a short paper that has results on a technical problem of broad interest to the OR community. The OPRE journal in the past has had success publishing shorter papers, and this category serves to specifically remind us that page length does not equate with importance. The maximum length for a focused technical paper is 20 pages (excluding references), and the Electronic Companion (EC) is for code and experiment details only (no proofs – proofs should be in the published portion of the paper).
2. A context and challenge paper is a short paper giving background on a wicked applied problem, that invites the OR community to illuminate ways to make progress on the problem using rigorous OR methods. Some examples of wicked problems are: climate change, the AIDS epidemic, famine, and homelessness. The maximum length for a context and challenge paper is 20 pages (excluding references), and there should be no EC. Context and challenge papers are usually invited submissions.
3. Regular manuscripts are the bread and butter of the journal. The maximum length for a regular manuscript is 30 pages (excluding references). The EC should not be longer than the length of the manuscript.
4. Lengthy manuscripts are longer than regular manuscripts. Lengthy manuscripts are generally no more than 40 pages in length (excluding references). The Electronic Companion (EC) should not be longer than the length of the manuscript.

Promised review time is tied to manuscript length. Review time is a precious commodity, and authors must respect that lengthy submissions require more from reviewers.

Anonymizing Your Manuscript

Operations Research conducts soft double-anonymous reviews, meaning that the authors are not provided with the identity of the reviewers and reviewers are not provided with the author names. Please be sure to remove all author names and institutions on the title page of the manuscript. As a soft double anonymous process, authors may still post preprints online.

Format

Manuscripts should be 1.5-spaced, with 11-point font and 1-inch margins all around.

Readability

The abstract and the introduction of every paper must be free of unnecessary jargon. These sections should be written in an expository style that will be comprehensible to readers who are not technical experts in the subject matter.

The message of the paper will be enhanced if it is presented in active, forceful, and concise prose. While the editors and staff will correct minor lapses from good style in the manuscript, they cannot undertake wholesale revisions of poorly written papers. Conciseness and clarity of presentation are important publication criteria.

Style Templates

Authors can write their manuscript using their preferred software as long as they can create a PDF that meets the above guidelines. For those who prefer to use LaTeX, style files are available here.

Mathematical Notation

Mathematical notation should be chosen so that the formulas and ideas presented in them are clear. Important details can be found in the Mathematical Notation section of the Author Portal.

Subject Classification Scheme for the OR/MS Index

Determine the appropriate subject classifications (up to 3) and accompanying descriptive phrases for all work submitted. Choose from one to three subject categories for each manuscript. For every category chosen, write a short phrase that puts the paper in context. (The phrase can be a concise rendering of the title, or it may specify some aspect of the paper that is important but not apparent in the title.) The length of each phrase, including spaces and punctuation, should not exceed 60 characters. This information will be printed on the title page of every article, technical paper, and letter that is published. Subject categories and phrases must appear on the title page of the manuscript. Subject classifications can be found here.

Cover Letter

Authors must declare in their cover letter whether they have any relevant or material financial interests that relate to the research described in their paper. If there are no financial conflicts, authors must state this clearly in their cover letter.

Organizing Your Manuscript

The text should be arranged as follows:

• Title page (including title, abstract, subject classification, and area of review)
• Abstract
• Introduction
• Main sections (which may include Tables and Figures)
• Appendices (required for print and online publication; optional)
• Acknowledgments
• References
• Electronic companions (for online-only appendices; optional)
• Code and data files and ReadMe uploaded in zip file (published online as supplemental material)

Title Page

The title page should including the manuscript title, abstract, subject classification, and area of review.

Abstract

Preface each article with a self-contained, one paragraph abstract that summarizes the problem and the principal results and conclusions. It should not exceed 200 words.

It is important that your abstract not contain mathematical notation that may be difficult to properly present in web browsers. The abstract is not only a part of the full article (print and online) but, more importantly, serves as the only free-to-all record of your paper. It is reused and remapped by a variety of online portals and metadata databases, some of which are text only. Please provide a text-only abstract, or, if that is impossible, try to minimize the use of math symbols and avoid accented variables.

Introduction

The introduction must clearly state the problem, the results to be found in the paper, and their significance to the operations research community. It should not contain equations or mathematical notation.

Main Sections (which may include Tables and Figures)

The main sections of the paper must be readable, the level of the mathematics and/or the terminology appropriate to the topic, and the material logically presented.

Appendices

Appendices that are crucial for understanding the manuscript should be included as regular appendices; those that represent optional supplemental material should be submitted as ‘electronic companions’ and will be published online-only.

Acknowledgments

Place acknowledgments of presentation, support, and assistance in a final section that precedes the references.

Endnotes

Operations Research does not use footnotes. Instead, authors should either incorporate subsidiary material in the main text in parentheses, or use an endnote.

References

References should be listed alphabetically by author name at the end of the paper in conformance with journal style. In-text citations should be indicated by the author’s last name and year of publication, e.g., (Norman 1977) or Norman (1977). Click here for examples of reference style.

Tables

Tables should be numbered with Arabic numerals, have a title, and be referred to sequentially in the text. Column headings should be brief and not use abbreviations. Do not use vertical rules. The use of footnotes is encouraged; designate these by lower case letters. Tables should be placed together after the Reference List, not embedded in the manuscript text.

Figures

Figures should be embedded in the manuscript, with the placement near the most relevant text.

Code & Data Files

Authors are expected to provide instructions after the last section in the main body of their paper specifying where their code and data, along with README file, can be found.  The code and data and README file can be either uploaded as a separate zip file to ScholarOne (and will not be included in the combined PDF document), or can be made available on github.  If the paper received a code and data exemption, then the reason for the exemption should be stated after the last section of the main body of the paper. 

Code & Data Disclosure Policy

Operations Research is known for its research rigor. On the mathematical side, proofs of results are available, either in the main body or the appendix, for all to read. On the algorithmic and empirical side, Operations Research is committed to providing a similar level of transparency, to the extent possible. As such, it is expected that authors will provide all code, scripts, and data, along with instructions sufficient for others to easily reproduce the results appearing in any paper submitted to the journal. The last section of the paper should provide a data and code accessibility statement, that refers to supporting data, code, and other materials, providing a brief overview of those materials, as well as pointers/citations to any materials already made publicly available (this is strongly encouraged).

See here for suggestions on how to organize your code and data files: https://orjournal.github.io/InstructionsForAuthors.html.

Exemptions to the above policy may be granted on the basis of code or data being non-public, or because the paper is purely methodological (without need for associated code or data). For example, data with identifying information about individuals may be sensitive and, therefore, confidential. As another example, data or code may be subject to use agreements or copyrights that prohibit redistribution. Papers granted exemptions should state the reason for the exemption in the last section of the paper, and should provide as much information as possible for results transparency purposes. For papers with data under NDA protection, the authors can provide synthetic data that can be used to test the algorithm/code. For papers with personally identifiable data, the authors can provide de-identified synthetic data that match the moments of the original data without leaking personal information. For paper that use non-public code, the authors can provide pseudocode for the general readership and private access to the code to the reviewers.

The process for granting an exemption is to request one from the Area Editor in the cover letter at paper submission time. The request should include the rationale for why the paper deserves to be published without full transparency into the code or data used to produce reported results. For an exemption to be granted, there must be agreement that the holistic contribution of the paper (the combined theoretical insights and empirical deductions that can be made from available code and data) is above the publication bar. The Area Editor may choose to consult with the Data, Software, and Computation Area Editor, as well as the Associate Editor and referees, before deciding whether or not to recommend to the EiC to grant the exemption. The Area Editor will be in communication with the authors regarding the exemption request throughout the review process. The EiC has final authority on all exemption requests.

Submitting Your Manuscript

Before You Submit

Conflict of Interest (COI) Policy

A conflict of interest (COI) arises when the objective judgement of a participant in the review process (Area Editor, Associate Editor, or Reviewer) is potentially impaired. OPRE requires Area Editors and Associate Editors to monitor manuscripts they are handling for potential COIs. (Note that reviewers cannot see author name(s) since the review process is double-anonymous.)

COI relationships include, but are not limited to the following:

• Active current collaboration;
• Co-authorship within the past 3 years;
• Collaboration on a funding proposal within the past 3 years;
• Employed at the same institution;
• (Former) PhD student and PhD advisor;
• Personal relationship or rivalry that prevents objectivity.

The journal has two back-up Editor-in-Chiefs, that handle manuscripts for which the Editor-in-Chief has a COI with the authors.

OPRE allows for Editors to submit manuscripts to the OPRE journal. An Area Editor cannot handle his/her own manuscript, or the manuscript of his/her co-Area Editor (in the case of Areas with two Area Editors). An Area Editor may handle the manuscript of an Area Editor from a different Area. An Area Editor may handle the manuscript of an Associate Editor from the same Area.

Conference-to-Journal Submission Policy

Authors must declare in their cover letter if a shortened version of their manuscript has appeared in a conference proceeding, and provide a pointer to the conference proceeding in their cover letter. The cover letter should provide the reasons for why the submitted manuscript also merits publication in Operations Research. For example, the reasons could be that the conference version was written for a different community (e.g., computer science, economics, etc.) and the journal version aims to shed better light on how OR tools and methodologies contributed to the solution, entailing non-trivial differences, or that the journal version contains significant generalizations compared to the conference version that are of interest to the OR community. Area Editors have the responsibility to judge the argument for publication in Operations Research in light of the earlier conference proceeding, and may consult with their Associate Editors in making that judgement.

The manuscript must provide sufficient incremental contributions to allow Operations Research copyright on the manuscript should the paper be accepted. Sufficient incremental contributions may include detailed proofs, illuminating numerics, generalization of results, and/or more significant work. To respect the double-blind submission policy, the manuscript should cite the shortened version of the manuscript as “anonymous” (which will be replaced with the authors’ identity if the manuscript is accepted) and any additional materials should be published using an anonymous github repository.

The above rules do NOT apply to papers published in conferences with an extended abstract option, and in which the authors chose the extended abstract option instead of publishing a full conference paper.

There are some conferences (for example, NeurIPS) that allow for public review feedback. When reviewing a submission with an open review history, the Associate Editor and Reviewers have the responsibility to form their own independent evaluation of the paper, and must not rely on public review feedback to form their opinions. The goal is to ensure a fair and objective assessment, aligned with the standards of Operations Research, regardless of past review history.

Conference-Forward-to-Journal Policy

The OPRE journal has ongoing relationships with the following three conferences: EC, Sigmetrics, and WINE. The following details the review process for papers forwarded from those conferences. There is NO guarantee that a paper forwarded from the conference will be accepted for publication at the OPRE journal. The goal of the conference-forward-to-OPRE process is to provide a faster overall timeline for the authors (from first submission to publication, if accepted), and also to improve quality and continuity of the review process.

1. Authors following this route must elect to publishing an extended abstract (one page or less) placeholder in the conference proceedings.
2. The conference must specify a deadline to authors, by which they must have submitted their paper to OPRE, along with any conference reviews and response to those reviews.
3. The conference must forward all reviews and reviewer names, as well as any higher-level editors involved in handling the paper, to the appropriate OPRE Area Editor.
4. The Area Editor chooses an Associate Editor who was NOT involved in handling the conference paper.
5. The Associate Editor should invite one reviewer that was involved in handling the conference paper and one reviewer that was NOT involved. In rare event situations in which the conference reviewers disagree strongly, then the Associate Editor, in consultation with the Area Editor, may decide to involve more than one conference reviewer AND another reviewer that was not involved in handling the conference paper. (There must always be one reviewer that was not involved in handling the conference paper. If the reviewer that was involved in handling the conference paper declines, then all reviewers may be new reviewers.)
6. The Associate Editor makes a recommendation to the Area Editor using all available information (conference reviews, conference reviewer report, and newly recruited reviewer report).
7. The Area Editor reads the Associate Editor recommendation, decides whether or not s/he agrees, and then communicates the decision to the authors.

The ScholarOne Submission Process

To submit a manuscript to Operations Research, authors should complete the submission process using the ScholarOne Manuscripts website.

IMPORTANT NOTE: By submitting a manuscript to or reviewing for this publication, your name, email address, and affiliation, and other contact details the publication might require, will be used for the regular operations of the publication, including, when necessary, sharing with the publisher (INFORMS) and partners for production and publication. The publication and the publisher recognize the importance of protecting the personal information collected from users in the operation of these services, and have practices in place to ensure that steps are taken to maintain the security, integrity, and privacy of the personal data collected and processed. You can learn more here.

There are seven steps for uploading a manuscript in the ScholarOne system:

Step 1: Type, Title, & Abstract: Enter the manuscript type (ie, Focused Technical, Regular Manuscript, Lengthy Manuscript). Provide the manuscript title and an abstract of no more than 200 words. Last, select the appropriate area of review (a listing of subject areas can be found here).

Step 2: Attributes: Please enter up to 3 keywords.

Step 3: Authors & Institutions: All authors and their institutions must be identified. Please note that the submitting author is required to provide their ORCID iD (more information about ORCID iDs can be found here).

Step 4: Reviewers & Editors: Authors should recommend 3 Associate Editors from the corresponding area and 5 reviewers. The 3 Associate Editors selected should usually be from the corresponding area. See the Associate Editors listed with the corresponding Area Editors here. If the 3 Associate Editors are not all from the corresponding area, there should be an explanation provided in the cover letter.

Step 5: Details & Comments: Authors can include their cover letter either in the text box or as a separate file. Authors must include in their cover letter a statement as to whether there are financial conflicts of interest related to the paper (if none exist, please state this). This information will be viewed by the Editors but not by the reviewers. Authors will denote funding in this section. Next, authors will list the number of figures their manuscript contains. Last, authors will certify that they are complying with the journal's ethical policies.

Step 6: File Upload: Authors will upload as many files as needed for their manuscript. These files will be combined into a single PDF document for the peer review process. For revisions, authors should include only the latest set of files.

Step 7: Review & Submit: As the final step, authors will review the previous six steps for completeness and view the PDF proof generated by the ScholarOne system (this is required). Be sure to select “Submit” when done.

Ethical Statements Authors Will Certify

As part of Step 5 (above), authors will certify the following ethical statements within the ScholarOne System:

Prior Submission

Has this manuscript been submitted previously to Operations Research? If yes, what is the manuscript ID of the previous submission?

Duplicate Submission

Confirm that the manuscript has been submitted solely to this journal and is not published, in press, or submitted elsewhere.

Ethical Guidelines

I acknowledge that I am aware of Operations Research's guidelines for ethical behavior in publishing (http://pubsonline.informs.org/page/opre/submission-guidelines) and all INFORMS policies referred to therein and that this submission conforms to those policies. I have disclosed (in my cover letter and in any related submission questions) any possible perceived conflicts of interest and noted all of my work that has substantial overlap to prior publications, conference proceedings, book chapters, and papers submitted to this journal or any other journals. I also certify that the copyright for all portions of this paper can and will be transferred to INFORMS upon acceptance.

Plagiarism & Copyright

I acknowledge that in submitting this paper I am aware of INFORMS policy on plagiarism and copyright (/authorportal/copyright-plagiarism). Further, I acknowledge that I will report to the editor(s) of the journal all of my manuscripts (e.g., prior publications, conference proceedings, book chapters, papers submitted to other journals) that have substantial overlap with the submitted paper. I also certify that the copyright for all portions of this paper can and will be transferred to INFORMS upon acceptance.

Reproducibility

I will provide sufficient computer code and data for others to reproduce the results in my paper if it is accepted for publication, or I will provide justification for not providing this information (e.g., because of a non-disclosure agreement with a data source) and an alternative means of reproduction (e.g., a dataset of similar characteristics to that used in the paper and anonymized for public distribution).

Troubleshooting

For additional training and support for using the ScholarOne Manuscripts submission system, please visit ScholarOne’s Author Resources page.

Contact Your Managing Editor

Hayes Simpson
INFORMS
5521 Research Park Drive
Suite 200
Catonsville, Maryland 21228
[email protected]

Review Process

Double-Anonymous Peer Review

The review process is soft double-anonymous.

What is soft double-anonymous?

Transportation Science recently defined soft double-anonymous as follows, which is in line with our views at Operations Research: "In a soft double-anonymous review process, authors’ names are omitted from the submission, but authors may still post their work online. The rationale for this choice is to acknowledge potential bias that exists with single-anonymous reviewing, while not overly burdening authors and journal administrators in the process."

OPRE's double-anonymous review process ensures authors cannot see the names of the Associate Editor and reviewers (but can see the name of the Area Editor).The Area and Associate Editors can see the names of the authors, but the reviewers cannot see the author names. Authors should eliminate references to their names when preparing their manuscript. Authors should cite their own work in such a way that does not reveal their identity.

What to Expect During Review

The goal is to have a 2-cycle review process.

1. The manuscript is assigned to the EiC. If the EiC has a conflict of interest, then a back-up EiC will handle the manuscript.
2. The Area Editor receives the manuscript, and strives to make a fit determination within one week (see Area Editor statements). If the paper is a fit for the Area, then the Area Editor passes on to an Associate Editor. For conference-to-journal submissions, the Area Editor (possible in consultation with the Associate Editor) must decide if the incremental novelty is sufficient (see Conference-to-Journal Submission Policy); the reviewers do not decide.
3. The Associate Editor receives the manuscript, and, within two weeks, determines if the paper has the potential to be over the bar for OR (see here for journal Editorial statement). Two criteria for desk rejecting are:
   1. If the Associate Editor has very strong expectation that both review reports will be negative, then the Associate Editor should desk reject.
   2. If the Associate Editor feels confident that the paper should not be published, even if all results are correct, then the Associate Editor should desk reject.

If no, the Associate Editor recommends reject to the Area Editor by sending a short report that explains his or her reasoning. If yes, the Associate Editor passes on to two reviewers. In addition to asking the reviewers for their overall opinion, the Associate Editor may also ask the reviewers some specific questions that will be helpful to the overall decision. For example, the Associate Editor may ask for the proofs to be double-checked, for the methodological novelty of the proofs to be compared to the literature, for the simulations and numerics to be assessed for robustness, etc.

4. The default review time for reviewers to submit their review for first submissions is set at:
   1. 3 weeks for focused technical papers;
   2. 6 weeks for regular submissions;
   3. 4 months for lengthy submissions.

The above helps ensure the following goal response times to authors:

1. 2 months for focused technical papers;
2. 3 months for regular submissions;
3. 5 months for lengthy submissions.

When a reviewer needs longer than the default review time, and the Associate Editor feels the expertise of that reviewer is important, then the review time may be extended. The review time for revisions — particularly for lengthy submissions — is expected to be shorter.

5. After receiving the reviewer reports, the Associate Editor writes a summary report, together with his or her own evaluation and recommendation. The summary report should provide general guidance to the authors regarding how to navigate the review comments. Since in general only 2 reviewers are invited, if the reviewer opinion conflicts, then the Associate Editor has the responsibility to resolve the tie. Even if the 2 reviewers are in agreement, the Associate Editor has the right and responsibility to disagree (either positively or negatively) when the Associate Editor feels something is off with reviewer judgement.
6. After receiving the Associate Editor and reviewer reports, the Area Editor makes a decision and ensures that the review team is all on the same page regarding the path forward for the paper. The Area Editor has the right and responsibility to disagree (either positively or negatively) with the Associate Editor, and should schedule discussion with the Associate Editor and review team when there is disagreement. Finally, the Area Editor sends an email to the authors notifying them of the decision.
7. There are five possible decisions:
   1. Accept. The paper is then passed to the EiC. The EiC checks that the review process is solid.
   2. Minor Revision. There is an implicit contract with the authors that the paper will be accepted in the next round, provided the authors respond to the review team comments in good faith.
   3. Major Revision. The paper is on a path to publication, but there is a significant amount of work to be done. The Area and Associate Editors will give guidance to the authors regarding how to navigate the review team comments. The expectation is that if the comments are suitably addressed, then the paper will move to the minor revision stage in the next round, or be accepted.
   4. Reject and Resubmit (to be used sparingly). The paper has some good ideas, but there is no clear path to publication. Enough work must be done on the paper that any resubmitted paper essentially looks like a new paper. The Area Editor has discretion regarding whether or not to use the same review team for the resubmission.
   5. Reject. No resubmission is allowed.

Appeals Process

Appeals are only considered where the author(s) believe that (i) the decision was based on one or more significant technical errors or other false conclusions made by the review team (all handling editors and reviewers) or (ii) members of the review team did not make a good-faith effort to follow the journal’s editorial policies (e.g., as described here). In such cases, the author(s) may appeal by email to the relevant Area Editor or the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals should be sent no more than eight weeks after the final decision was transmitted to the author(s).

Your appeal should be organized as follows: 

•  State whether you are appealing on the basis of (i) or (ii) or both. 
• Your reasoning for why (i), (ii), or both are applicable in your case. Your appeal may not be longer than 500 words. Appeals that are longer than 500 words will be returned unread. Arguments not relevant to (i) or (ii) will be disregarded.

Please remember that the job of the review team is to use their expertise to judge the strength and significance of the contribution. An appeal will not be granted based on a difference in opinion regarding the value of the contribution; as such, arguments explaining why the contribution is stronger than the review team determined will be ignored.

The editor will consider the merits of the appeal, may consult with other members of the review team and editorial board, and will choose a path of action which is generally either to uphold the decision made or to secure one or more additional reviews of the paper for further consideration. All appeal decisions made by the Editor-in-Chief are final.