International Journal of Production Economics Submission Guide

Source: Clarivate JCR 2024, Elsevier editorial disclosures (accessed April 2026).

Source: IJPE author guidelines.

Use this page when deciding:

• whether the analytical contribution is substantive
• whether modeling rigor is appropriate
• whether operations relevance is direct

• a clear analytical contribution to production economics
• rigorous modeling methodology
• direct operations relevance
• engagement with established methods
• a cover letter establishing the analytical contribution

• Descriptive case studies without analytical contribution.
• Weak modeling methodology.
• Missing operations relevance.
• General business research without production focus.

IJPE is a flagship production-economics and operations journal.

Analytical-rigor standard: the journal differentiates from Production and Operations Management (broader) and Journal of Operations Management (broader applied) by demanding analytical modeling rigor.

Operations-relevance expectation: editors expect direct implications for operations practice.

The 50-60% desk rejection rate: decisive editorial screen.

The strongest IJPE cover letters establish:

• the analytical contribution
• the modeling methodology
• the operations relevance
• the central finding

• Is International Journal of Production Economics a good journal?

Before upload, run your manuscript through an IJPE analytical contribution readiness check.

In our pre-submission review work with operations manuscripts targeting IJPE, three patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections.

In our experience, roughly 35% of IJPE desk rejections trace to descriptive case-study framing. In our experience, roughly 25% involve weak modeling methodology. In our experience, roughly 20% arise from missing operations relevance.

• Descriptive case studies without analytical contribution. IJPE editors look for analytical advances, not just case descriptions. We observe submissions framed as "we examined operations in firm X" without modeling routinely desk-rejected.

• Weak modeling methodology. Editors expect rigorous mathematical, optimization, or empirical modeling. We see manuscripts with thin modeling routinely returned.

• Missing operations relevance. IJPE specifically expects direct implications for operations practice. We find papers framed as general business research without operations focus routinely declined. An IJPE analytical contribution readiness check can identify whether the package supports a submission.

Clarivate JCR 2024 bibliometric data places IJPE among top operations and production-economics journals.

In pre-submission diagnostic work for top operations and production-economics journals, we consistently see four signals that distinguish strong submissions from weak ones. First, the contribution must be analytical, not descriptive. Second, modeling methodology should be rigorous. Third, operations relevance should be direct. Fourth, engagement with established operations-research methods should be explicit.

The single most consistent feedback class we deliver in pre-submission diagnostics for IJPE is the descriptive-versus-analytical distinction. IJPE editors expect analytical contributions, not just case descriptions. Submissions framed as "we describe production process in firm X" routinely receive "where is the analytical contribution?" feedback during desk screening. We coach authors to lead with the analytical question and frame the empirical work in service of that question. Papers framed as "we developed an analytical model that addresses production challenge X by exploiting principle Y, validated using data Z" receive better editorial traction. The same logic applies across analytical operations journals: editors are operating with limited slot inventory, and the submissions that get traction lead with the analytical contribution.

Beyond the rubric checks, three pre-submission diagnostic patterns recur most often in the manuscripts we review for IJPE. First, manuscripts where the abstract reports case findings without articulating the analytical contribution are flagged at desk for descriptive framing. Second, manuscripts where modeling is reported without sensitivity analysis are flagged for methodological gaps. Third, manuscripts that lack engagement with IJPE's recent issues are at risk of being told the contribution doesn't fit the publication conversation.

The strongest manuscripts we coach distinguish themselves on three operational behaviors. First, they confine the cover letter to one page. Second, they include a one-sentence elevator pitch articulating the analytical contribution. Third, they identify the specific recent IJPE articles that this manuscript builds on and the specific competing work.

Beyond the rubric checks, editorial triage at this tier operates on limited time per manuscript. Editors typically scan abstract, introduction, methodology, and conclusions before deciding whether to invite reviewer engagement. Manuscripts that bury the contribution in middle sections, or that require multiple readings to identify the central argument, fare worse than manuscripts that lead with their strongest signal. We coach researchers to assume the editor has 10 minutes and to design the abstract, introduction, and conclusions accordingly: each section should independently convey the contribution, the methodological rigor, and the implications, rather than relying on linear reading of the full manuscript.