Notes from the editors: Ethical guidelines at Journal of Operations Management

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2016.02.001
• Date: 01 March 2016
• Author: V. Daniel R. Guide,Mikko Ketokivi
• Published date: 01 March 2016

Editorial

Notes from the editors: Ethical guidelines at Journal of Operations

Management

A lot has been written about what constitutes good reviewing

and editing, and the guidelines on how to prepare a manuscript

for publication are equally abundant. But we feel it is equally impor-

tant to clarify and discuss the foundations of what constitutes

proper author etiquette. There are also many ethical questions

related to authoring manuscripts that should be explicated, if

only to avoid confusion. Again, the impetus for writing this editorial

is empirical: unfortunately, we run into problems and misunder-

standings sufficiently often to warrant some reflection and guid-

ance. Here are seven things all JOM authors should keep in mind

as they think of their professional duties as authors. The best way

to be open about these issues toward the editors is to include

with every submission a detailed cover letter. We receive cover let-

ters with less than 50 percent of the submissionsdwe would like

this percentage to be a hundred. In your cover letter, do not just

tell us why your manuscript is important and why it makes a

contribution, take it also as an opportunity to provide full disclo-

sure and tell us everything we need to know about the manuscript.

We also expectour editorial team to follow some simple rules to

prevent conflicts of interest.

1. Plagiarism

In our experience, by far the most common form of plagiarism is

self-plagiarism, which is re-using material one has used in previous

publications. We strongly recommend all authors to pay close

attention to this. There are no hard and fast rules on what consti-

tutes plagiarism, but you should know that all manuscripts submit-

ted to JOM are submitted to CrossCheck (http://www.ithenticate.

com/products/crosscheck), a software that detects plagiarism. The

CrossCheck output tells the Editor-in-Chief what percentage of

the text in the manuscript can be found in other published sources.

Typically, for legitimate manuscripts, this percentage is less than

five percent. If the percentage is ten and above, we usually take a

closer look at what is causing this; anything over twenty percent

is always a cause for concern, and we will contact, without excep-

tion, the author and ask for clarification. Sometimes the reason for

the high percentage is legitimate and innocuous, for example, it is

due to the posting of a working paper version of the manuscript on

a web site. This problem can be solved by removing the working pa-

per from the site. In the absence of a legitimate explanation, we

typically desk reject the manuscript, because all manuscripts sub-

mitted to JOM must be original contributions not published in other

sources. It is up to the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief to decide

whether a revised version of the manuscript can be submitted.

The other form of plagiarismdpassing someone else's work as

one's owndis obviously a huge cause for concern when it happens

and we take it very seriously, because it amounts to intellectual

theft. However, this form of plagiarism is so rare at JOM we do

not feel it needs to be addressed here.

2. Disclosure about data

We all know that collecting good data takes time and effort, and

getting more than one paper out of a database is tempting. This is

fine, but authors must be very clear about this in their submissions.

Here is our simple rule of thumb: the data are primary data if and

only if they were collected specifically for the purpose of the sub-

mitted manuscript. If they were not, the authors must disclose

this in a cover letter. Whenever no declaration is made, the editors

and the reviewers will assume the data are primary data. If it turns

out later in the review process the data are secondary, the Editor-

in-Chief may move to reject the paper. Again, using secondary

data is not a problemdpretending as if secondary data were pri-

mary is.

Disclosure is particularly important if the data were collected or

the dataset constructed by the researchers. If the authors use

already published data (e.g., the Compustat database), then it is

obvious it is secondary data, and no further clarifications are

required.

Disclosure about data also encompasses author effort. For

example, if you use a survey database where the data were

collected in a collective effort by a group of colleagues, we need

to know what your specific role in the data collection effort was.

Please be as specific as possible in the cover letter about your role

in the data collection process. Sometimes reviewers and Associate

Editors handling the manuscript should be provided access to

raw data. Unless there are legal or other compelling factors that

prohibit raw data disclosure, authors should provide their raw

data upon request as well. All data submitted to the journal will

be treated confidentially.

3. Disclosure about manuscript history

While we hope JOM would be our authors' first choice, some

manuscripts that are submitted to us are clearly rejects from other

journals. Our preference aside, there is nothing wrong with submit-

ting to JOM a manuscript that was rejected from another journal.

But again, transparency is crucial. If you are submitting a rejected

manuscript to us, we strongly encourage you to provide full

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Operations Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jom

Journal of Operations Management 42-43 (2016) 1e3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2016.02.001

0272-6963/©2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.