Peer Review Process

I-MARKED (International Journal of Marketing Studies and Environments of Digital Business) applies a rigorous, objective, and transparent editorial evaluation procedure. To ensure the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic excellence, all submitted manuscripts undergo a Double-Blind Peer Review process, where the identities of both authors and reviewers remain strictly anonymous throughout the review cycle.

 

  1. Initial Evaluation and Desk Review

Every submitted manuscript is initially screened by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Associate Editor to assess the following preliminary requirements:

 

  • Scope and Relevance: Alignment of the manuscript with the journal’s Aims and Scope across marketing sciences, digital business environments, and technological ecosystems.
  • Academic Novelty and Contribution: Initial assessment of the theoretical or empirical advancement offered by the study.
  • Manuscript Formatting and Style: Compliance with the official I-MARKED Article Template and Author Guidelines.
  • Plagiarism and Similarity Screening: Plagiarism verification using certified screening software (Turnitin or iThenticate). The maximum allowable overall similarity index is 20%, with a maximum of 3% from any single source.

 

Manuscripts that fail to meet the basic formatting standards, lack sufficient novelty, or exceed similarity thresholds will be rejected immediately without external review (Desk Rejection).

 

  1. Double-Blind Peer Review Stage

Manuscripts passing the initial desk evaluation are assigned to a minimum of two (2) independent external reviewers possessing recognized expertise in the specific subject domain. The review process is conducted under strict confidentiality to eliminate bias:

  • The manuscript file provided to reviewers is completely anonymized (all author names, institutional affiliations, and self-identifying references are removed).
  • The reviewers' identities, affiliations, and locations are concealed from the authors.

 

  1. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts systematically based on the following scholarly parameters:

  • Originality and Scientific Contribution: The degree to which the manuscript provides new empirical insights, theoretical frameworks, or methodological advancements to digital marketing and modern business literature.
  • Theoretical Framework and Literature Review: Rigor and currency of the cited baseline literature (predominantly peer-reviewed sources from the last 5 years) and the logical formulation of research hypotheses or propositions.
  • Methodological Rigor and Data Analysis: Appropriateness, transparency, and reproducibility of the research design, sampling techniques, measurement scales, and analytical methods (e.g., PLS-SEM, CB-SEM, experimental, or qualitative approaches).
  • Discussion and Managerial Implications: Depth of analytical interpretation against prior global studies and the explicit articulation of actionable implications for corporate managers, digital marketers, or policymakers.
  • Presentation and Language Clarity: Precision of academic English, structured argument flow, and appropriate presentation of tables, figures, and statistical reporting.

 

  1. Editorial Decision

Based on the independent evaluations and recommendations provided by the reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Board renders one of the following final decisions:

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript is accepted in its current form for publication without further modifications.
  • Revisions Required (Minor Revisions): The manuscript is accepted conditionally. Authors must address specific minor stylistic, analytical, or textual corrections within 7 to 14 days. Revisions are evaluated internally by the editor.
  • Resubmit for Review (Major Revisions): The manuscript requires substantial conceptual, theoretical, or methodological restructuring. Authors are given 3 to 4 weeks to revise and must submit a detailed Response to Reviewers The revised manuscript is subjected to a second round of external peer review.
  • Decline Submission: The manuscript is rejected due to critical methodological flaws, lack of novelty, insufficient scientific contribution, or fundamental misalignment with the journal's standards.
  1. Review Timeline and Workflow Summary

 

Stage

Responsible Party

Estimated Timeline

Desk Review & Plagiarism Check

Editor-in-Chief / Managing Editor

1 – 2 Weeks

First-Round Peer Review

External Reviewers (Min. 2 Reviewers)

4 – 5 Weeks

Editorial Decision Notification

Handling Editor / Editor-in-Chief

1 Week

Author Revision Period (Minor/Major)

Authors

3 – 4 Weeks

Final Copyediting, Layout & Online Publication

Copyeditor & Layout Editor

2 Weeks

 

The standard turnaround time from initial submission to final editorial decision and online publication is approximately 12 weeks (3 months).