Publication ethics

Management Research Quarterly (MRQ) adheres to the COPE Core Practices and applies them to all submissions and published content.

Management Research Quarterly is an organizational signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). The journal assesses manuscripts on their intrinsic scholarly merit rather than using journal-level metrics, institutional prestige, or author-level citation indicators as proxies for research quality. Further information is provided in our Responsible Research Assessment and DORA Statement.

I. Editorial Board & Peer Review

Integrity & independence. Editorial decisions are made on scholarly merit, free from institutional, commercial, or personal influence. MRQ charges no APCs or submission fees.

Peer review model. Except for clearly labelled editorials and notices, manuscripts undergo double-blind peer review by at least two independent reviewers. Submissions may be desk-rejected if out of scope or unlikely to pass review.

Plagiarism and Similarity Screening. MRQ routinely screens submitted manuscripts for plagiarism and textual overlap. The journal uses Turnitin iThenticate plagiarism detection software to assist editors in identifying possible plagiarism, inappropriate text recycling, unattributed use of sources, and excessive similarity with previously published work. Similarity reports are assessed by the editorial team as part of the editorial screening process. A high similarity score does not automatically lead to rejection, but manuscripts may be rejected or returned to authors for clarification, correction, or revision when the report indicates plagiarism, insufficient attribution, redundant publication, or other breaches of publication ethics.

Process & timelines. A handling (co-)editor oversees the process, mitigates conflicts of interest, and may solicit an additional review if reports diverge. Typical outcomes are reject, major/minor revision, or accept. MRQ aims to conclude the process within three months.

Confidentiality. Editors and reviewers must keep submissions confidential and may not use unpublished materials for personal research.

Citation equity. MRQ recognizes knowledge as a global public good and encourages equitable citation practices that acknowledge diverse geographies, genders, and epistemologies.

II. Reviewers’ Responsibilities

  • Provide objective, constructive, and timely reports.
  • Declare competing interests and recuse when necessary.
  • Maintain confidentiality and avoid any use of privileged information.

III. Authors’ Responsibilities

Originality & transparency. Submissions must be original, not under review elsewhere, and must accurately cite prior work. Text recycling/self-plagiarism must be disclosed and minimized with proper citation.

Authorship & contributorship. Authorship reflects substantial contributions to conception/design, analysis/interpretation, drafting/revision, and final approval; all authors share accountability. Changes to authorship after submission require written agreement from all authors. 

Data, materials, and availability. Authors should describe methods transparently and, where possible, make data and materials available or provide justified access restrictions. Sensitive or confidential datasets must be handled ethically.

Research ethics (humans/animals). Studies involving human participants or animals must state ethics approval (board name and reference) and, where applicable, informed consent and data-protection safeguards.

Generative Artificial Intelligence.MRQ requires transparent and responsible use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies. AI systems cannot qualify as authors, human authors remain accountable for all submitted content, and confidential manuscript material must not be uploaded into systems that compromise confidentiality. See the journal's Generative AI Policy for requirements applying to authors, reviewers, and editors.

Legal & ethical compliance. Submissions must not contain defamatory content or unlawful material. Authors must promptly notify MRQ of significant errors discovered post-publication.

IV. Conflicts of Interest

All authors, editors, and reviewers must disclose financial and non-financial competing interests (e.g., funding, employment, consultancies, personal relationships). Submissions from editors and editorial board members. Manuscripts submitted by an Editor, member of the Editorial Board or Scientific Committee, or an individual with another potential conflict of interest with the journal are handled independently by an editor with no conflict of interest. The submitting editor or board member takes no part in reviewer selection, access to reviewer identities, editorial deliberation, or the final decision. Such submissions undergo the same peer-review and editorial standards as all other manuscripts.

V. Misconduct, Appeals, and Complaints

Allegations. MRQ investigates suspected fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, image/data manipulation, duplicate publication, and unethical research following COPE flowcharts. Sanctions may include rejection, retraction, or notifying institutions/funders.

Corrections & retractions. When the scholarly record requires amendment, MRQ publishes Corrections, Expressions of Concern, or Retractions with clear reasons and links to the original article.

Appeals & complaints. Authors may appeal editorial decisions by writing to the Editor-in-Chief with a reasoned case referencing the reviews. Complaints about editorial conduct or process can be sent to the editorial office; unresolved cases follow COPE guidance.