Go to Section

POLICY

Types of Ethical Violations (not exhaustive)

PROCEDURES

Preliminary Review
Formal Review
Sanctions Guidelines
Appeals
Recordkeeping and Archiving
Fair Process Committment (Rights of the Author)
Acknowledgement

GLOSSARY

Additional Resources

Flowchart for Handling Suspected Publication Ethics Violations

Number 13.8: Publication Ethics

Effective: May 2009; Revised July 2016, July 2021, August 2025

POLICY

INFORMS is committed to fostering a scholarly publishing environment rooted in integrity, transparency, and respect for intellectual contributions. Upholding high ethical standards ensures public trust in scientific findings and properly allocates credit for ideas and results. All parties involved in the publishing process — including editors, peer reviewers, authors, and the publisher — must adhere to the ethical principles outlined herein.

Definitions of key terms used in this section are provided in the Glossary at the end of this policy.

Types of Ethical Violations (not exhaustive)

Concurrent or Multiple Publications

Authors must not submit or publish manuscripts based on substantially similar 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 indicate how their submitted manuscript offers novel contributions beyond those of the previous work. Concurrently submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical behavior.

Plagiarism

It is a core value of INFORMS publications to disseminate research that clearly, accurately, and honestly represents the work of authors while recognizing the work of others by appropriate attribution. As a consequence, plagiarism is an unacceptable violation of publication ethics. INFORMS adopts the definition of plagiarism established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which includes:

the use of others’ ideas or expressions without citation;
verbatim copying without quotation or attribution; and
self-plagiarism without proper citation or disclosure.

Unless the information can be considered “common knowledge,” proper attribution of an idea, algorithm, computational methodology, or experimental design is required even if a journal operates with double-anonymous review.

Manipulation or Falsification of Citations

The inclusion of citations for the primary purpose of artificially increasing citation counts to specific authors or journals is unethical and prohibited.

Authors are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all citations included in a manuscript. The submission of references that cannot be verified, especially those generated via generative AI tools, constitutes unethical behavior, whether done intentionally or through negligence. Authors must validate all references against original sources before submission.

Data Falsification or Fabrication

Falsification or fabrication of data, results, methodology, or other components in any form — whether committed intentionally or through gross negligence — constitutes a severe breach of publication ethics and is prohibited.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any financial, professional, or personal interests that could influence the objectivity of their work. Failure to disclose conflicts of interest will be considered an ethical breach and is prohibited.

Authorship Misrepresentation

All listed authors must meet authorship criteria. INFORMS follows the authorship definition and principles outlined in its Authorship policy (/authorportal/authorship). Gift authorship, ghost authorship, and failure to include deserving contributors are prohibited.

Authors are permitted to use generative artificial intelligence (AI) in the preparation of their manuscripts. However, machine learning (ML) and AI tools may not be listed as authors. Authors take full responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the submitted work, including any AI-generated content.

Any use of generative AI tools (e.g., for drafting text, translation, summarization, or data analysis) must be disclosed in the acknowledgements section, with details of the tool used and the nature of the assistance provided.

Failure to Address Retractions or Corrections

Authors and editors are responsible for issuing corrections or retractions when necessary. Withholding such action may be treated as an ethical infraction and is prohibited.

Editors-in-chief are responsible for initiating retraction and errata notices in coordination with the Publications Office following INFORMS procedures for handling Post-Publication Corrections and Critiques (/authorportal/corrections).

PROCEDURES

Preliminary Review

An editor-in-chief (EIC), after being made aware of a suspected ethical violation, shall review all evidence and make a preliminary judgment regarding the claim. As part of the EIC’s deliberation, the author(s) must be contacted and provided an opportunity to respond to the charge.

If the EIC finds sufficient grounds to support an investigation, the EIC shall forward all materials to the vice president of publications for formal review.

If the EIC finds insufficient grounds to support an investigation, the matter is dismissed. If the charge originates from an external party (for example, another author or researcher) and the EIC dismisses it, the complainant must be informed, by the EIC, of their right to request reconsideration by the vice president of publications. Requests for reconsideration must be received within 30 days of receipt of the EIC’s notification of dismissal.

Reconsideration requests will be considered in cases where the complainant can provide:

new evidence that was not available to the EIC at the time of their decision;
a material factual or technical error in the EIC’s assessment; or
credible evidence of bias or a substantial procedural error.

Upon receiving a request for reconsideration, the vice president of publications will conduct a preliminary evaluation. If the vice president determines that sufficient cause exists to conduct a full investigation, they will initiate a formal review under this policy.

Formal Review

Upon receipt of materials detailing a claim of suspected ethical violations, or written request for reconsideration of the EIC’s preliminary decision to dismiss a charge, the vice president of publications shall initiate a formal review by either (a) referring the case to the Publication Ethics Sub-Committee or (b) appointing an ad hoc sub-committee for formal review and adjudication of the charge. For the remainder of the policy, the term “Publication Ethics Sub-Committee” shall refer to both of these options unless otherwise specified.

Composition of the Sub-Committee

The committee will consist of a chair and at least three other individuals. All members of the sub-committee should possess a deep understanding of ethical considerations in scholarly publishing and sufficient proficiency in the research field/topic in question to understand any research or methodological nuances involved in the case. To avoid bias, the sub-committee should not include the EIC who presented the charge, anyone directly involved in the review of the material in question (e.g., senior, department, area, or associate editors or reviewers), or anyone who could be viewed to have a conflict of interest with the individuals or material in question. The director of publications (or their appointed designee) shall serve as a staff liaison to the sub-committee to guide the sub-committee on policy and procedure and provide access to material related to the charge, such as key dates for relevant activities as retrieved from INFORMS’ peer review software platform. The staff liaison may advise the sub-committee on policy and procedures but shall have no official voice in the interpretation of evidence or determination of final judgment.

Members of the Publication Ethics Sub-Committee will be appointed by the vice president of publications from within the membership of the Publications Committee, which is nominated and approved according to the procedures outlined in P&P 13.3: Publications Committee. Provisions for the appointment of ad hoc sub-committee members are outlined in the following section.

Ad Hoc Sub-Committee Members and Supplemental Ad Hoc Ethics Sub-Committees

To address potential conflicts of interest or augment subject-matter expertise, the chair of the Publication Ethics Sub-Committee, in consultation with the vice president of publications, may temporarily substitute one or more members of the sub-committee. Substitutions should be drawn preferentially from the membership of the Publications Committee but may include other qualified members of INFORMS if necessary.

In the event that multiple suspected ethics violations require investigation and adjudication simultaneously, the vice president of publications may empanel one or more supplemental ad hoc ethics sub-committees. These sub-committees shall be authorized to investigate and adjudicate additional cases in parallel with the standing Publication Ethics Sub-Committee. Members of any ad hoc ethics sub-committee are appointed by the vice president of publications and must be members of INFORMS.

All ad hoc sub-committees shall conform to the composition requirements described above (other than Publications Committee membership), including adherence to conflict-of-interest safeguards and the inclusion of a staff liaison.

Activities of the Sub-Committee

The sub-committee, acting under authority delegated by the vice president of publications, has the sole responsibility for adjudicating the charge and recommending appropriate sanctions. The vice president of publications retains sole authority to determine and impose any sanctions after the formal review.

Given the serious nature of a charge of plagiarism, data falsification/fabrication, or other ethical violation, it is required that confidentiality be maintained while deliberations and/or appeals are being considered. During this time, the charge and supporting materials are only to be made known to those persons who are involved in the review and adjudication process.

While investigation and consideration of different types of ethical violations may require different approaches, the process should include the following baseline tasks:

formally notifying the author(s) and any coauthors of the charge, within 15 days of receipt;
initiating additional investigation or evidence collection as needed;
conducting a thorough review of collected evidence;
reaching a determination regarding the charge and recommending sanctions; and
providing a summary to the vice president of publications including evidence utilized, the process followed, the findings and recommended sanctions, and the rationale (see below).

Notification to stakeholders will be made by the vice president as outlined below.

In general, the sub-committee shall apply a “preponderance of the evidence” standard — meaning that a violation is deemed to have occurred if it is more likely than not, based on the available evidence — when evaluating whether a violation occurred. In cases where proposed sanctions are especially severe, the committee may require a higher standard of confidence before rendering judgment, and this shall be noted in the summary.

All formal notifications related to the investigation process — such as notification of the charge, requests for information, or preliminary findings — will be communicated by the sub-committee chair (or their designee) in writing to the vice president of publications. These communications will include a statement of rationale, supporting evidence, and reference to relevant sections of this policy. The vice president of publications is solely responsible for communicating the final decision and any sanction to the respondent. This final communication must be made in writing and copied to the editor-in-chief, sub-committee chair, director of publications, and president of INFORMS. Confidentiality will be maintained within this leadership group, consistent with the policy’s confidentiality provisions.

Summary Judgment

If, in response to either the EIC’s initial notification or to the sub-committee’s formal notification, the author(s) do not contest the charges, the sub-committee may recommend a summary judgment.

If the author(s) fail to respond to either the EIC’s initial notification or to the sub-committee’s formal notification within 45 days, the sub-committee may recommend a summary judgment. However, all reasonable efforts must be made to confirm delivery and receipt of communications before such action is taken. Reasonable efforts include confirming email validity through journal systems or institutional faculty websites, reaching out via coauthors or ORCID contacts, and allowing a minimum of three contact attempts across a 45-day period.

Sanction Guidelines

Sanction recommendations are made at the sub-committee’s discretion, based on factors including, but not limited to, severity, frequency, and context of the violation. In cases involving multiple authors, recommended sanctions may vary according to each individual’s level of responsibility and any mitigating circumstances (such as student co-authors on advisor-submitted manuscripts), which the sub-committee shall take into account when recommending both the distribution and severity of sanctions. In cases involving particularly egregious or outrageous ethical violations, the sub-committee reserves the right to recommend additional or exceptional sanctions beyond those typically applied.

The following lists outline the typical types of sanctions that may be recommended in response to a given offense tier. The sub-committee may recommend one or more of these sanctions, as appropriate to the severity, context, and specifics of the case. Not all listed sanctions must be recommended in any given instance. Sanctions are intended to be proportional to the severity and frequency of the offense, and they may be recommended singly or in combination at the discretion of the sub-committee.

First Offense

Immediate rejection of all in-process submissions within any INFORMS journal.
Nullification of the decision to publish all accepted but not yet published submissions across all INFORMS journals.
2- to 3-year ban on submission to any INFORMS journal (resubmission of papers in revision may be allowed or disallowed at the discretion of the Publication Ethics Sub-Committee).
Removal from all editorial board positions held on any INFORMS journal.
Retraction and/or public notification to the readership if the paper has been already published.

Second Offense

May include any first-offense sanctions, plus:

5-year ban on submissions to any INFORMS journal (resubmission of papers in revision may be allowed at the discretion of the Publication Ethics Sub-Committee).

Third or Greater Offense

May include any of the above sanctions, plus:

Lifetime ban on submissions to any INFORMS journal (resubmission of papers in revision may be allowed at the discretion of the Publication Ethics Sub-Committee).
Notification of the author(s)’ employer/dean.

Appeals

If the author(s) (or external complainant, when relevant) believe that they have strong reasons to seek reconsideration of the vice president’s decision, they may file an appeal to the president of INFORMS.

Appeals will be considered under the following conditions:

material factual or technical errors, or
substantial procedural errors or violations, or
the emergence of new evidence that could reasonably affect the outcome of the case and was not available during the original investigation.

Appeals must be made in writing to the INFORMS president within 45 days of receipt of the vice president’s decision, barring exceptional circumstances. The appeal must unambiguously explain how at least one of the conditions stated above has been met. Upon receipt of an appeal, the president will appoint an independent appeals committee, which to avoid bias will exclude all previous sub-committee members, except the staff liaison who served as an advisor, who may advise the appeal committee, as needed, on policy and procedures.

The appeals committee will review the evidence, process, and conclusions of the Publication Ethics Sub-Committee and make a final recommendation of findings and sanctions if warranted to the INFORMS president. If relevant, the originally imposed sanctions will be stayed until the appeal process has concluded. After receiving materials from the appeals committee, the president will make the final decision and communicate it to the author(s) in writing within 90 days of receipt of the appeal request. The decision of the president will be considered final. The final decision will be archived by INFORMS and may be cited in the event of future ethical complaints.

Recordkeeping and Archiving

Findings of the Publication Ethics Sub-Committee will be retained by the Publications Office for recordkeeping and to inform future training or policy improvement. All records will be handled confidentially.

Fair Process Commitment (Rights of the Author)

INFORMS is committed to ensuring that all ethics investigations are conducted with fairness, transparency, and due regard for the rights of those involved. Authors under review for an alleged ethical violation are entitled to the following protections throughout the process.

Timely Review

Authors have the right to a timely resolution of allegations. Formal investigation shall be initiated within 15 days of referral from the editor-in-chief (or, where relevant, the vice president of publications), and the process will ordinarily conclude within 60 days of initiation, barring exceptional circumstances. Any appeals will be conducted in a timely manner as specified in this document, barring exceptional circumstances.

Notice of Allegation

Authors will receive written notification that includes the specific charge(s), the supporting evidence, and references to relevant sections of this policy.

Opportunity to Respond

Authors have the right to submit a written rebuttal, provide supporting evidence, and request clarification of the charge prior to any judgment being made.

Right to Appeal

Authors may appeal a dismissal or a determination by the sub-committee, in accordance with the timelines and procedural grounds described in this policy.

Impartial Evaluation

Authors are entitled to a fair and impartial review. The sub-committee shall be free of conflicts of interest and possess adequate subject-matter expertise.

Confidentiality

Authors have the right to a process that protects their confidentiality to the extent consistent with the need for a fair and complete review. Communications, deliberations, and outcomes will be handled in accordance with the confidentiality and recordkeeping provisions outlined in this policy.

Acknowledgement

This policy and associated procedures are informed by the Committee on Publications Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and Guidelines¹ on:

Guidelines on Good Publication Practice
Retraction Guidelines
Flowcharts for managing misconduct cases

Additional resources and case studies are available on COPE’s website at https://publicationethics.org.

GLOSSARY

Brief definitions are included below for key terms referenced in this policy.

authorship — An individual listed as an author must have made a substantial intellectual contribution to the work, participated in drafting or revising it, approved the final version, and agreed to be accountable for its accuracy and integrity. Source: Council of Science Editors (CSE) Authorship Task Force Report (2012); INFORMS Authorship Guidelines.

common knowledge — Something that most people know, have learned, or accept as truth from experience or everyday life, rather than from research or study. In the context of avoiding plagiarism, INFORMS will follow the University of Pennsylvania’s extended definition as “any information that the average, educated reader would accept as reliable without having to look it up.” Source: Oxford English Dictionary; University of Pennsylvania Code of Academic Integrity (1996).

conflict of interest — A situation in which an individual’s personal, professional, or financial relationships could inappropriately influence, or appear to influence, their judgment or objectivity in the conduct, review, or communication of research. The existence of a conflict does not imply wrongdoing but must be disclosed and appropriately managed to maintain transparency and trust in the publication process. Source: COPE Core Practices; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations (2023); National Science Foundation Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures.

concurrent (or duplicate) submission — Submission of a manuscript that is under review or published elsewhere without appropriate disclosure or permission. Such redundancy is unethical unless explicitly permitted and justified. Source: COPE Guidelines on Redundant Publication.

data falsification — Manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, or changing/omitting data or results so that the research is not accurately represented. Source: COPE Guidelines; U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI), definition of research misconduct (42 CFR Part 93).

data fabrication — Making up data or results and recording or reporting them as if they were real. Source: COPE Guidelines; ORI, definition of research misconduct (42 CFR Part 93).

exceptional circumstances — Situations that reasonably prevent a party from complying with standard deadlines or procedures, such as serious illness, natural disaster, or other unforeseen and unavoidable disruptions. Requests for exceptions will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the responsible INFORMS officer. Source: ORI Case Handling Manual; COPE Case Handling Framework.

ghost authorship — Omitting individuals who made substantial contributions to a manuscript, typically by failing to list them as authors or properly acknowledge them. Source: COPE Discussion Document: How to Handle Authorship Disputes.

gift (or honorary) authorship — Listing individuals as authors who did not meet the required authorship criteria, often as a courtesy or due to seniority. Source: CSE Recommendations; COPE Case Studies.

gross negligence — A severe degree of negligence representing a reckless disregard for the duty of care owed to others. It involves conduct that goes beyond ordinary carelessness or failure to exercise reasonable judgment, and instead reflects a blatant indifference to the consequences of one’s actions or omissions. Source: Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th ed. (2019).

material factual error — An error involving a key fact that, if known or corrected at the time of deliberation, could reasonably have changed the outcome of the investigation or decision. Examples include incorrect dates, identities, authorship claims, or documented actions relevant to the case, including misattribution of responsibility for the alleged violation. Source: ORI Case Handling Manual.

ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) — A non-profit organization that provides researchers with a unique, persistent digital identifier (an ORCID iD) to distinguish their scholarly work from that of others. ORCID iDs are used to link authors to their publications, affiliations, and contributions across systems and platforms. Source: ORCID (https://orcid.org).

plagiarism — The use of another’s ideas, processes, results, or words without proper acknowledgment, including direct copying, paraphrasing, or presenting someone else's work as one's own. Self-plagiarism, or text recycling, without citation is also considered a violation. Source: COPE Core Practices; U.S. Federal Research Misconduct Policy.

preponderance of the evidence — A standard of proof meaning that, based on the available evidence, it is more likely than not that the alleged violation occurred. This is the typical burden of proof used in civil proceedings and ethical adjudication processes. Source: ORI, definition of research misconduct (42 CFR Part 93).

retraction — A public statement issued to withdraw a published article due to major errors or ethical violations (e.g., plagiarism, fabrication, or authorship disputes). Retractions should follow clear guidelines and be visible to readers. Source: COPE Retraction Guidelines.

self-plagiarism — The reuse of one’s own previously published content—text, figures, data—without citation or acknowledgment. It includes “text recycling” and republishing the same data set or results across multiple articles. Source: COPE Text Recycling Guidelines.

summary judgment — A procedural conclusion reached when an author fails to respond to allegations or communications within a defined time period (typically 45 days), allowing the committee to rule on the case based on available evidence. Source: COPE Case Handling Framework.

technical error — A significant mistake in the application or interpretation of data, research methods, or evaluation standards that materially impacts the validity of the investigation or decision. This may include misinterpretation of methodological issues or misclassification of evidence. Source: COPE Case Handling Framework.

¹ Accessed April 2025.