Peer Reviewer Process

I-MARKED (International Journal of Marketing Studies and Environments of Digital Business) applies a rigorous, objective, and transparent editorial evaluation process. To maintain high standards of scientific integrity and academic quality, all manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening undergo a Double-Blind Peer Review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.

1. Initial Evaluation and Desk Review

All submitted manuscripts are initially screened by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor to assess their suitability for further consideration based on the following criteria:

  • Scope and Relevance: The manuscript must be aligned with the journal's Aims and Scope, particularly in the areas of marketing sciences, digital business environments, and emerging technological ecosystems.
  • Academic Novelty and Contribution: The editor conducts an initial assessment of the manuscript's originality, theoretical contribution, empirical value, and relevance to the existing body of knowledge.
  • Manuscript Formatting and Style: The manuscript must comply with the official I-MARKED Author Guidelines and manuscript template.
  • Plagiarism and Similarity Screening: All manuscripts are screened using recognized similarity-detection software, such as Turnitin or iThenticate. The maximum allowable overall similarity index is 20%, with a maximum of 3% from any single source, excluding references and other appropriately identified non-substantive matches where applicable.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements, fall outside the journal's scope, demonstrate insufficient originality, or exceed the applicable similarity threshold may be rejected at this stage without external peer review (Desk Rejection).

2. Double-Blind Peer Review Stage

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two (2) independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant subject area. The review is conducted under a Double-Blind Peer Review system to promote objectivity and minimize potential bias.

  • The manuscript submitted to reviewers is anonymized by removing author names, institutional affiliations, acknowledgments, and other information that could directly identify the authors.
  • Reviewers' identities and relevant identifying information are not disclosed to the authors.
  • Reviewers are expected to maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript and the review process.

3. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts systematically according to the following scholarly criteria:

  • Originality and Scientific Contribution: The extent to which the manuscript provides new empirical findings, theoretical insights, conceptual developments, or methodological contributions to the fields of marketing, digital business, and related areas.
  • Theoretical Framework and Literature Review: The relevance, rigor, and currency of the theoretical foundation and literature review, including appropriate use of recent peer-reviewed sources and the logical development of research hypotheses or propositions.
  • Methodological Rigor and Data Analysis: The appropriateness, transparency, validity, and reproducibility of the research design, sampling procedures, measurement instruments, data collection, and analytical methods, including quantitative, qualitative, mixed-method, experimental, PLS-SEM, or CB-SEM approaches where applicable.
  • Results, Discussion, and Implications: The clarity and accuracy of the reported findings, the depth of interpretation in relation to previous research, and the articulation of relevant theoretical, practical, managerial, or policy implications.
  • Presentation and Language Clarity: The quality of academic writing, logical organization, clarity of argumentation, and appropriate presentation of tables, figures, equations, and statistical results.

Reviewers may also identify ethical concerns, methodological limitations, inappropriate citations, plagiarism, data-related concerns, or other issues that may affect the integrity of the manuscript.

4. Editorial Decision

Following the completion of the peer-review process, the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor considers the reviewers' comments and recommendations before making the editorial decision. The possible decisions are:

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript is accepted for publication in its current form. Only minor editorial or production adjustments may be required.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires limited revisions to address specific editorial, textual, analytical, or presentation-related issues. Authors are generally given 7–14 days to submit the revised manuscript. The revised version may be evaluated by the handling editor.
  • Major Revisions / Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires substantial conceptual, theoretical, methodological, or analytical revisions. Authors are generally given 3–4 weeks to prepare the revised manuscript and a detailed Response to Reviewers document. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.
  • Reject / Decline Submission: The manuscript is not accepted for publication when it has substantial methodological or theoretical weaknesses, insufficient originality or contribution, serious ethical concerns, or does not meet the journal's academic and editorial standards.

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor based on the overall quality of the manuscript, the reviewers' assessments, the extent of the revisions required, and the journal's editorial standards. Reviewer recommendations are considered carefully but do not automatically determine the final editorial decision.

5. Revision and Resubmission

Authors receiving a revision decision must carefully address all reviewer and editor comments. A revised manuscript should be accompanied by a Response to Reviewers document that clearly indicates:

  1. Each comment or recommendation raised by the reviewers.
  2. The authors' response to each comment.
  3. The specific changes made in the revised manuscript, including page or section references where appropriate.

Failure to adequately address substantive reviewer comments may result in further revision requests or rejection of the manuscript.

6. Review Timeline

I-MARKED aims to process manuscripts efficiently while maintaining the quality and integrity of peer review. The duration of the review process may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, and the number of review rounds required.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a specific timeframe, as editorial decisions are based primarily on scholarly quality and the integrity of the peer-review process.