Guide for Reviewers

Peer review is central to ensuring the quality, relevance, and academic integrity of the Journal of Marketing Review (JMR). This guide outlines the responsibilities, ethical expectations, and procedural standards for reviewers engaged in the journal’s double-blind peer review system.

1. Role of the Reviewer

Reviewers contribute to:

Maintaining high scholarly standards in marketing research and related disciplines
Enhancing clarity, theoretical depth, and methodological rigor of submissions
Supporting fair, unbiased, and timely editorial decisions
Providing constructive feedback to improve academic and practical contributions

The objective of peer review is to improve manuscripts, regardless of the final decision.

2. Review Model

JMR operates a double-blind peer review system:

Reviewers do not know the identity of authors
Authors do not know the identity of reviewers
All manuscripts are treated as strictly confidential

3. Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Reviewers should accept an invitation only if:

The manuscript aligns with their expertise (e.g., consumer behaviour, branding, digital marketing, analytics, advertising)
They can complete the review within the assigned timeframe (typically 2–3 weeks)
No conflict of interest exists

Conflicts of interest include:

Recent collaboration with the author(s)
Institutional affiliation with the author(s)
Personal, financial, or professional relationships affecting impartiality

If any conflict exists, reviewers must decline the invitation.

4. Confidentiality

Reviewers must:

Treat manuscripts as strictly confidential documents
Not share, discuss, or circulate manuscript content
Not use manuscript content for personal or academic advantage
Not upload manuscripts to AI tools or external platforms
Delete all files after completing the review process

5. Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

Provide objective, fair, and constructive evaluations
Avoid personal, offensive, or discriminatory comments
Identify ethical concerns such as plagiarism, data manipulation, or unethical research practices
Inform the editor of any suspected misconduct

6. Use of AI Tools

Reviewers must NOT:

Upload manuscripts to AI tools or external systems
Use AI-generated content to write review reports

Reviewers MAY:

Use their own expertise and scholarly judgment
Use reference tools for citation checking without exposing manuscript content

All reviews must be entirely human-generated.

7. What Reviewers Should Evaluate

7.1 Relevance and Scope

Is the manuscript relevant to marketing and JMR’s scope?
Does it contribute to marketing theory or practice?

7.2 Originality and Contribution

Does the study provide new insights into marketing theory or consumer behaviour?
Are managerial or industry implications clearly articulated?

7.3 Literature and Theory

Is the literature review current, relevant, and well-structured?
Is the theoretical framework strong and appropriate?

7.4 Methodology

Is the research design appropriate and clearly explained?
Are sampling, data collection, and analysis methods rigorous?
Is the study replicable and transparent?

7.5 Results and Discussion

Are findings clearly presented and logically interpreted?
Do results connect to marketing theory and practice?

7.6 Conclusions and Implications

Are conclusions supported by evidence?
Are marketing and managerial implications meaningful and actionable?

7.7 Presentation and Clarity

Is the manuscript well-structured and clearly written?
Are tables, figures, and visuals appropriate and informative?

8. Structure of the Review Report

A. Summary

Brief overview of the manuscript and its main contribution

B. Major Comments

Key issues related to theory, methodology, analysis, or contribution

C. Minor Comments

Suggestions on clarity, structure, language, or formatting

All feedback should be specific, constructive, and actionable.

9. Recommendation Options

Reviewers should select one of the following:

Accept
Minor revision
Major revision
Reject

Recommendations must align with written comments.

10. Tone and Professionalism

Reviews must be:

Constructive and respectful
Objective and evidence-based
Focused on improving the manuscript
Supportive even when recommending rejection

11. Timeliness