International Journal of Information Management Submission Guide: Elsevier Portal, Artifacts & Editors
What submitting to International Journal of Information Management actually requires: the Elsevier Editorial Manager portal, the ten-item artifacts package including Highlights as a first-screen signal, the 65-day median first decision, the AIS basket-of-8 context (IJIM is NOT in the basket), and how the journal routes against MISQ, ISR, JSIS, and EJIS.
Readiness scan
Find out if this manuscript is ready to submit.
Run the Free Readiness Scan before you submit. Catch the issues editors reject on first read.
How to approach International Journal of Information Management
Use the submission guide like a working checklist. The goal is to make fit, package completeness, and cover-letter framing obvious before you open the portal.
Stage | What to check |
|---|---|
1. Scope | Confirm IJIM fit versus MISQ, ISR, JSIS, and Information & Management |
2. Package | Prepare Elsevier artifacts and Highlights |
3. Cover letter | Submit through the IJIM Guide for Authors access path into Editorial Manager |
Quick answer: This International Journal of Information Management submission guide covers the operational contract for Elsevier's high-citation managerial-IS journal: the Editorial Manager portal accessed via the IJIM Guide for Authors landing, the ten-item artifacts package, the 65-day median first-decision timeline, the AIS basket-of-8 context (IJIM is NOT in the basket), and how the journal routes against MISQ, ISR, JSIS, and EJIS.
Run an IJIM pre-submission readiness check before clicking submit, or work through this guide manually.
Use this page if you're preparing an IJIM submission and want the portal access path, the artifact checklist, the realistic timeline, and the routing logic against the AIS basket-of-8 IS journals.
From our manuscript review practice
IJIM is NOT in the AIS Senior Scholars Basket of 8 despite having a higher impact factor (~21) than any individual basket journal. The basket measures editorial pedigree and AIS legitimacy, not citation density. Practical implication: junior R1 IS faculty needing basket-counting tenure hits should target MISQ, ISR, JSIS, EJIS, JAIS, JMIS, ISJ, or JIT; cross-disciplinary or senior authors needing citation visibility and broader audience reach should target IJIM.
How this page was reviewed
We reviewed the IJIM page on ScienceDirect, the IJIM Guide for Authors page, the Editorial Manager access path, and aggregator data from Researcher.Life, Editage, and ResearchGate. The AIS basket-of-8 context and the scope and theory/design-advance rules below match what IJIM publishes and what authors report through community channels.
Evidence boundary: official Elsevier pages explain IJIM's broad information-management scope and submission package, but they do not fully explain the manuscript-level line between managerial information management, marketing analytics, operations research, pure computer science, and AIS basket-of-8 positioning. Manusights submission analysis identifies a failure pattern in IJIM drafts: the digital topic is current, but the information-management decision is not the protagonist.
Editors specifically screen for significant theory or design advance, and editors routinely reject papers where managerial framing is added after a marketing, operations, agriculture, or pure-CS result. Official guidance leaves authors to infer whether the abstract, theory section, design artifact, methods, Highlights, and venue ladder make the paper IJIM-ready.
In the 100-manuscript Manusights sample across International Journal of Information Management and adjacent information-systems venues, the strongest IJIM packages made the managerial information decision visible before the method. The abstract, theory section, research model, design artifact, methods, Highlights, data statement, managerial implications, and cover letter all had to prove a significant theory or design advance rather than a current digital topic with management language added late.
What IJIM requires at a glance
Metric | Value |
|---|---|
Impact Factor (2024 JCR) | ~21 (one of the highest in IS) |
Publisher | Elsevier |
AIS Senior Scholars Basket of 8 | NO (basket includes MISQ, ISR, JSIS, EJIS, JAIS, JMIS, ISJ, JIT) |
Editorial focus | Managerial information management, digital transformation, IT strategy, IS economics |
Article types | Article (8,000 to 12,000 words), Research Note (4,000 to 6,000 words), Review |
Submission portal | Via IJIM Guide for Authors (Elsevier Editorial Manager) |
First-decision median | 65 days after peer review; early editorial decisions can arrive much faster |
Median time to acceptance | ~258 days |
APC (open access opt-in) | USD 3,990 |
ISSN | 0268-4012 |
Source: IJIM on ScienceDirect, Clarivate JCR 2024, Researcher.Life IJIM profile, accessed May 2026.
How the IJIM submission portal works
IJIM submissions route through Elsevier's Editorial Manager (the Aries Systems platform). The journal-specific Editorial Manager landing is at:
Editorial Manager submission portal
The reliable access path is also available via the journal's Guide for Authors page on ScienceDirect at ScienceDirect guide for authors; click "Submit Your Paper" to be routed to the same Editorial Manager instance.
What length and format caps apply
IJIM publishes three article types with type-specific length expectations:
- Article: 8,000 to 12,000 words including references; the journal does not publish a strict word cap but the convention is firm. Typically 8 figures or fewer for the main text, with overflow in supplementary material
- Research Note: 4,000 to 6,000 words, focused contribution on a specific question; 4 figures typical
- Review: comprehensive integrative review, typically 10,000 words with extensive reference list; 10 figures or fewer
No hard figure cap is enforced; supplementary material absorbs overflow. Highlights mandatory at 3 to 5 bullets, no more than 85 characters each.
What artifacts are required at submission
Artifact | Detail |
|---|---|
Cover letter | Names the managerial information-management contribution; do not name reviewers here (use Editorial Manager form) |
Manuscript file | Word (.doc/.docx) or LaTeX source; no PDF source |
Highlights | 3 to 5 bullets, each no more than 85 characters; Elsevier-mandatory; first editorial-screen signal |
Declaration of competing interests | Required; Elsevier declarations tool |
Conflicts of interest | Covered by the competing-interests declaration |
CRediT author contributions | Required for all authors |
Data availability statement | Required; Elsevier Open Data policy |
Funding statement | All grant and industry support |
Ethics statement | Required where human-subjects or sensitive data are involved |
Supplementary material | Tables, figures, code, raw data, robustness checks |
ORCID | Required for all authors at proof stage |
Suggested reviewers | 3 to 5 names via the Editorial Manager form |
Source: IJIM Guide for Authors.
What happens during editorial triage
IJIM's first-decision median is 65 days after peer review, fast for an IF-21 IS journal. The speed reflects the editor-in-chief's aggressive first screen on scope and theory/design advance.
Day 0: Submission via Editorial Manager
Submission lands in the Editorial Manager queue. Automated technical checks run on file types, Highlights formatting, and declaration completeness.
Day 1 to 4: First editorial-screen decision
The editor-in-chief reads the abstract and cover letter for the scope rule (managerial information management) and the contribution claim. Early returns arrive quickly when the screen finds scope violation or insufficient theoretical or design advance.
Week 1 to 2: Associate Editor and reviewer assignment
Manuscripts clearing the first editorial screen go to an Associate Editor who invites reviewers. The IJIM reviewer pool overlaps with the AIS basket-of-8 IS journals but the AE selects for managerial-IS expertise specifically.
Week 4 to 10: Peer review
Typically 2 to 3 reviewers per manuscript. Reviewers return reports across this window; the AE consolidates.
Week 8 to 10: First decision
Decision arrives at the 65-day median from submission. Major revision is most common for borderline submissions; minor revision for stronger ones.
Week 12 to 24: Major revision
Authors typically have 4 to 12 weeks for major revisions, then a second review cycle of 2 to 4 weeks.
Week 36 to 40: Acceptance
The full acceptance path takes ~258 days median per Researcher.Life community data. Online-first publication appears 1 to 2 weeks after acceptance.
Source: Researcher.Life IJIM profile, accessed May 2026.
How IJIM routes against AIS basket-of-8 and adjacent venues
The single most consequential decision before submission is which managerial-IS journal to target. The AIS basket membership versus citation reach is the load-bearing rule.
Venue | IF | Basket-of-8 | Best for | Why route here instead of IJIM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
International Journal of Information Management | ~21 | NO | High citation reach, broader cross-disciplinary audience | (this page) |
MIS Quarterly (MISQ) | ~10 | YES | AIS-canonical managerial IS | Junior R1 IS tenure cases needing basket count |
Information Systems Research (ISR) | ~7 | YES | Quantitative IS, behavioral, design science | Hypothesis-testing with strong econometrics or experiments |
Journal of Strategic Information Systems (JSIS) | ~9 | YES | Strategic IS, digital strategy | Strategy-emphasis without IJIM's broader scope |
European Journal of Information Systems (EJIS) | ~6 | YES | European IS community, qualitative methods | European-context studies or qualitative work |
Journal of MIS (JMIS) | ~6 | YES | Behavioral and design IS | Behavioral focus with experimental methods |
Information Systems Journal (ISJ) | ~6 | YES | Critical IS, qualitative | Critical-theory framing or qualitative depth |
Journal of Information Technology (JIT) | ~7 | YES | Technology and management of IT | IT-management framing for British IS community |
The routing rule: if the tenure case requires basket counting, target the basket-of-8 (MISQ first); if citation reach and cross-disciplinary audience matter more, IJIM clears the bar; if the work is narrowly technical without managerial framing, route to a CS venue instead.
What IJIM editors screen for
IJIM editors screen on three operational signals stated verbatim in the journal's editorial positioning:
- Scope match: managerial information management. The scope is explicitly information management as a managerial discipline; pure marketing, pure operations, pure agriculture, and pure CS work routes elsewhere when the information-management problem is not central.
- Theoretical or design advance. The common failure pattern is TAM or UTAUT replication on a new dataset without theoretical extension; the journal expects new theoretical claims, new design science artifacts, or new methodological frameworks.
- Highlights and declaration completeness. Non-conforming Highlights (outside 3-to-5-bullets / no more than 85-character format), missing competing-interests declaration, missing CRediT, or missing data availability statement return at the portal-level technical check.
Readiness check
Run the scan against the requirements while they're in front of you.
See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
Recent IJIM research direction
Recent issues span digital transformation, IT strategy and governance, digital business models, AI and ML in management, IT value and IS economics, digital platforms and ecosystems, social media management, IT-enabled innovation, IS in emerging markets, and emerging managerial-IS topics.
For specific recent papers, see IJIM on ScienceDirect.
Decision risks before submitting to International Journal of Information Management
This guide tells you what International Journal of Information Management editors look for before reviewer assignment, and Manusights checks whether your paper passes the managerial-information-management, theory-or-design-advance, Highlights, methods, data-availability, managerial-implications, AIS-basket, and Elsevier-routing tests that official Elsevier guidance cannot evaluate from a generic checklist. Paid Manusights reviews are covered by a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we never train on submitted manuscripts.
Across information-systems and management manuscripts targeting International Journal of Information Management, three first-read patterns recur because IJIM is a managerial information-management journal, not a generic high-impact home for any digital, AI, platform, analytics, or computer-science paper. (Per Elsevier's IJIM scope language, narrowly focused work in areas such as marketing or agriculture needs a clear information-management contribution, and papers need significant theory or design advance.)
These patterns are testable in the title, abstract, theory section, design artifact, methods, Highlights, data availability statement, managerial implications, and AIS basket or Elsevier sibling routing before Editorial Manager upload.
Digital-topic paper where managerial information management is not the protagonist
Across International Journal of Information Management-targeted manuscripts, the most frequent failure is a paper that has a digital or AI surface but not an information-management core. The title names generative AI, social media, platforms, smart services, digital transformation, blockchain, analytics, e-commerce, agriculture technology, operations dashboards, or machine learning, but the abstract does not state the managerial information-management problem.
The methods may be rigorous, the dataset may be current, and the figures may show useful effects, yet the manuscript reads as marketing science, operations research, agricultural information systems, computer science, public administration, or organizational behavior with IJIM vocabulary added late. The failing components are the abstract, theory section, research model, construct definitions, managerial implications, and Highlights.
IJIM can publish cross-disciplinary work, but information management must be the protagonist. These manuscripts often route better to Journal of Business Research, Information & Management, Decision Support Systems, Government Information Quarterly, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Computers in Human Behavior, Expert Systems with Applications, or a CS/AI venue.
The fix is to rebuild the first screen around an information-management decision, governance problem, organizational capability, digital strategy question, platform-management issue, or design artifact before presenting the domain context.
TAM, UTAUT, or adoption replication without theory or design advance
In Manusights reviews, the second recurring pattern is a technically competent adoption, acceptance, continuance, trust, privacy, or digital-use study that applies TAM, UTAUT, TOE, DOI, task-technology fit, or similar models to a new technology or country without extending theory or design.
The manuscript may have a large survey, clean structural-equation modeling, robustness tests, and polished tables, but the contribution is still confirmation in a new setting. IJIM's stated bar is not "new dataset plus familiar model"; it is significant theory or design advance. The failing components are the theory section, construct logic, hypotheses, contribution paragraph, tables, and discussion.
Warning signs include a model diagram that could be reused for any technology, generic hypotheses with only variable-name changes, and Highlights that summarize "factors affecting adoption" rather than a new theoretical boundary condition or design principle. These manuscripts often fit Information & Management, Computers in Human Behavior, Telematics and Informatics, Internet Research, Electronic Markets, or specialist IS outlets better.
The fix is to add a real theoretical move: new construct, boundary condition, mechanism, design artifact, governance insight, platform logic, or managerial information-processing claim that changes what the model explains.
Pure technical system or algorithm with management implications added after results
For International Journal of Information Management submissions, the third pattern is a computer-science paper with a managerial implications paragraph attached. The manuscript reports a model architecture, NLP pipeline, recommender system, optimization method, classification framework, cybersecurity detector, analytics dashboard, or AI evaluation.
The contribution lives in accuracy, efficiency, architecture, or benchmark performance, while information management appears only in the introduction and conclusion. The mismatch appears in the methods, baselines, evaluation metrics, ablation table, managerial implications section, and reference list.
If the paper's strongest claim is technical performance, Expert Systems with Applications, Decision Support Systems, Information Processing & Management, IEEE Access, ACM Transactions venues, or a domain AI journal may fit better.
IJIM-ready technical work makes the managerial problem drive the design and evaluation: what organizational decision improves, what information asymmetry changes, what governance process is redesigned, what platform behavior is explained, or what managerial capability the artifact enables.
The fix is to make the management theory or design-science logic visible before the algorithm, then evaluate success with decision, organization, platform, or information-management outcomes rather than only technical metrics.
Check whether your International Journal of Information Management manuscript is submission-ready →
Submit If
- the contribution is managerial information management with explicit theoretical or design advance
- the work is not narrowly focused on marketing, agriculture, or pure CS
- citation reach and cross-disciplinary audience matter more than AIS basket counting
- Highlights name a theoretical claim, a design artifact, or a quantitative finding (not the topic)
- the Elsevier artifact package is complete (Highlights, COI, CRediT, data, ethics, ORCID)
- you've considered MISQ, ISR, JSIS, EJIS, JAIS, JMIS, ISJ, and JIT as alternatives
Think Twice If
- the tenure case requires AIS basket-of-8 counting (target MISQ, ISR, JSIS, EJIS first)
- the abstract and theory section are TAM or UTAUT replication without theoretical extension
- the methods, baselines, and ablation table make the contribution pure CS
- the managerial framing is retrofitted onto a technical contribution in the discussion
- Highlights are generic or template-shaped
What to read next
- Is IJIM a good journal?
- International Journal of Information Management journal overview
Related status guide
If your manuscript is already in the portal, use the Information Systems Research Under Review status guide to interpret the status window, follow-up threshold, and reviewer-risk preparation while you wait.
Last verified: May 2026 against IJIM editorial pages and Researcher.Life community data.
Frequently asked questions
Submissions route through Elsevier's Editorial Manager via the IJIM Guide for Authors landing at the official author instructions Click the Submit Your Paper button on that page to access the Editorial Manager instance directly; the bare the official submission portal slug is currently not the correct journal landing, so always route through ScienceDirect.
65 days median to first decision after peer review; early editorial decisions arrive much faster when the manuscript fails the scope or theory/design-advance screen. The Associate Editor and reviewer assignment runs weeks 1 to 2 after editorial clearance, peer review proper runs weeks 4 to 10, and the first decision lands around week 9 to 10. Median time to acceptance including revisions is ~258 days. Online-first publication appears 1 to 2 weeks after acceptance.
Cover letter naming the managerial information-management contribution; manuscript file in Word (.doc/.docx) or LaTeX source; 3 to 5 Highlights bullets at no more than 85 characters each (Elsevier-mandatory); declaration of competing interests (= conflicts of interest); CRediT author contributions; data availability statement (Open Data policy); funding statement; ethics declaration where applicable; supplementary material as separate files; ORCID iD for all authors; 3 to 5 suggested reviewers via Editorial Manager.
No. IJIM is NOT in the AIS Senior Scholars Basket of 8, despite having a higher impact factor (~21) than any individual basket journal. The basket measures editorial pedigree and AIS legitimacy, not citation density. Practical implication: junior R1 IS faculty needing basket-counting tenure hits should target MISQ, ISR, JSIS, EJIS, JAIS, JMIS, ISJ, or JIT; cross-disciplinary or senior authors needing citation visibility and broader audience reach should target IJIM.
Three patterns: scope violation where the paper is narrowly focused on another area like marketing or agriculture; insufficient theoretical or design advance, especially TAM or UTAUT replication on a new dataset without theoretical extension; pure-CS technical contributions where managerial framing is retrofitted in the discussion section after technical results.
Sources
Before you upload
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Move from this article into the next decision-support step. The scan works best once the journal and submission plan are clearer.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.