General Guidance

The Journal upholds the value of integrity in paper evaluations and values an effective peer review system, ensuring the competence of each reviewer. The Journal consistently expands its external reviewer pool, encouraging editorial board members and current reviewers to suggest qualified individuals with a reputable standing in the scientific community, aligning with the journal’s objectives and scope. The fundamental objective of peer review is to furnish the Editor with pertinent information, enabling them to make a fair, evidence-based decision in alignment with the journal’s editorial standards. Additionally, review reports aim to assist authors in refining their papers to meet the criteria for publication acceptance. In instances where a recommendation is made to reject the paper, the accompanying report should elucidate the principal weaknesses of the research. This constructive feedback is intended to guide authors in preparing their manuscript for submission to an alternative journal.

Before Reviewing

Employing a double-blind peer review approach, The Journal places a strong emphasis on preserving the anonymity of both authors and reviewers. This commitment aligns with the principles set forth in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, Journal Article Reporting Standards for Race, Ethnicity, and Culture (JARS–REC) which serve as a comprehensive framework outlining the fundamental principles and standards that all peer reviewers are expected to uphold throughout the peer review process.

Peer reviewers engaged in the evaluation of manuscripts for The Journal are encouraged to meticulously adhere to the following guidelines:

1. Subject Expertise: Peer reviewers should only agree to assess manuscripts that fall within their subject expertise. This ensures that the review is conducted with a nuanced understanding, contributing to a timely and thorough evaluation.
2. Confidentiality: Safeguarding the confidentiality of the peer review process is paramount. Reviewers must refrain from disclosing any details beyond those explicitly authorized by the journal, preserving the integrity of the double-blind review system.
3. Ethical Use of Information: Reviewers should abstain from utilizing any information obtained during the peer review process for personal gain or to the advantage or detriment of others. The information acquired should be strictly used for the purpose of scholarly evaluation.
4. Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Any potential conflicting interests must be disclosed promptly. Reviewers are encouraged to seek guidance from the journal if uncertainty arises about the relevance of a particular interest, ensuring transparency and integrity in the review process.
5. Objectivity and Constructiveness: Reviews should maintain a tone of objectivity and constructiveness. Hostility, inflammatory language, and derogatory personal comments are to be avoided to foster a constructive and respectful review environment.
6. Impartiality: Reviews should remain unbiased, free from influence based on the manuscript’s origins, author characteristics, or commercial considerations. The evaluation should solely be grounded in the merit of the scholarly work.
7. Reciprocal Commitment: Recognizing the reciprocal nature of peer review, reviewers should commit to conducting fair and timely assessments. This ensures a collaborative and efficient review process for the benefit of the academic community.
8. Accurate Information: Reviewers are expected to provide accurate personal and professional information to journals. This includes reflecting true expertise, contributing to the credibility of the peer review process.
9. Impersonation Awareness: Reviewers should acknowledge that impersonation during the review process constitutes serious misconduct. Vigilance in detecting and reporting any instances of impersonation is vital to maintaining the integrity of the peer review system.

Peer-review process

The primary aim of the review is to furnish the editors with an expert opinion on the validity and quality of the manuscript in question. Additionally, the review is intended to offer authors clear feedback on enhancing their papers, making them suitable for publication in the Journal. During the assessment of the article, the reviewer should evaluate the following aspects:

Content Quality and Originality:

• Novelty and Interest: Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to merit publication?
• Contribution to Knowledge: Does it add valuable insights to the existing body of knowledge?
• Adherence to Standards: Does the article meet the journal’s standards?
• Research Question Significance: Is the research question deemed important in the field?
• Originality Determination: Assess the originality by considering its place in the percentile and conducting a literature search using tools like Scopus/Web of Science.
• Previous Coverage: If the research has been covered before, provide references to the editor.

Organization and Clarity:

• Title: Does the title clearly describe the article?
• Abstract: Does the abstract accurately reflect the article’s content?
• Introduction: Does it accurately describe the author’s objectives and state the problem being investigated? Does it provide context through a summary of relevant research and explain how it challenges or extends other findings?
• Method (for research paper): Does the author explain data collection accurately? Is the design suitable? Is there enough information for replication? Are methods, especially if new, explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Are equipment and materials adequately described? Is the type of recorded data clear?
• Results: Is the presentation clear and logical? Is the analysis appropriate? Are statistics correct? If uncomfortable with statistics, this should be communicated to the editor. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.
• Conclusion/Discussion: Are claims supported by results? Do they seem reasonable? How do results relate to expectations and earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research advances scientific knowledge?
• Tables, Figures, Images: Are they appropriate, effectively presenting data, and easy to interpret?

Scope:

• Alignment with Journal’s aims: Does the article align with the aims and scope of the journal?

Reviewers engaged with Marketing and Management of Innovations are not allowed to utilize AI or AI-assisted tools, such as ChatGPT, for reviewing submissions or generating peer review reports. Reviewers are individually accountable for the content of their reports, and the use of AI technologies for these purposes is considered a breach of peer review confidentiality.

Final Comments

The Journal employs a structured reviewer form designed to guide reviewers in aligning with publication criteria and enhancing the efficiency of the peer review process. The form comprises two sections:

Comments to the editor

The comments provided by the reviewer to the editor are strictly confidential and will be exclusively reviewed by the editorial team. They will not be shared directly with the authors, at least not in their original form. The editors may choose to paraphrase or reference the reviewer’s comments in their communication with the authors. Reviewers are encouraged to utilize the confidential comments to the editor box to articulate their recommendation regarding the manuscript—whether it be acceptance, revision, or rejection. Additionally, this space can be used to discuss the severity of key weaknesses and assess their potential for correction. Reviewers may also specify other reasons supporting or opposing the publication of the paper. Furthermore, this area allows reviewers to communicate any confidential questions, concerns, or opinions they may have about the manuscript directly to the editorial team. To maintain clarity and avoid duplication, it is advised that reviewers refrain from copying and pasting identical material into both the comments to the editor and Comments to Authors boxes. This ensures that the comments directed to the editor remain focused on issues pertinent to the editorial decision-making process.

Comments to the authors

The comments provided by the reviewer to authors are intended for both the authors and the editors. It is crucial that these comments offer a critical yet constructive review delivered in a considerate and impartial tone. It is important to note that these comments should not disclose the reviewer’s confidential recommendation regarding the rejection, revision, or acceptance of the paper, nor should they express the reviewer’s opinion on whether the paper should be published. The ultimate decision on the status of the paper—whether it is to be rejected, revised, or accepted—rests with the editors, not the reviewers. Both the authors and the editors rely on the reviewer to pinpoint the most significant issues, emphasizing the main reasons behind the reviewer’s recommendation to reject, revise, or accept the manuscript.

Recommendation

The reviewer’s recommendation regarding the acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript should primarily hinge on the key strengths and major weaknesses related to the scientific content, rather than focusing solely on the writing quality. This recommendation should align with the reviewer’s comments on the manuscript. When identifying significant deficiencies, it is crucial for the reviewer to assess whether they are potentially fixable. Certain issues, such as major flaws in study design, may be both severe and unfixable, leading the reviewer to recommend rejection. Other substantial problems, like the use of an inappropriate statistical test in the primary analysis, might be rectifiable if the authors are given an opportunity to revise and resubmit their manuscript. The fixability of major weaknesses or problems should be a key consideration in the reviewer’s decision-making process. It is important to note that major weaknesses or problems, even if significant, do not automatically justify rejection if they are potentially fixable. In cases where the reviewer cannot determine the fixability of major issues, a recommendation for a major revision may be appropriate, offering the authors a chance to address and rectify these concerns. Reviewers are urged to ensure that issues identified as “major” genuinely constitute significant weaknesses or problems. Conversely, minor weaknesses or problems, on their own, are rarely sufficient grounds for the rejection of a manuscript. If a study addresses an important question or tests an interesting hypothesis, and if it is well designed and well executed, it can be informative even if the results are null. Automatic rejection of studies with null findings can lead to publication biases that skew entire lines of research toward excessively optimistic conclusions. In particular, a bias toward publishing trials only if their results are positive can make interventions seem more effective than they truly are.

The reviewers send the suggestions/recommendations and indicate one of the following decisions:

• • Accept: to accept the article for publishing in its original form;
  • Minor revision: the article requires minor corrections, which are indicated in the Review;
  • Major revision: a substantial review of the article content is needed; recommendations for material improvement are indicated in the Review;
  • Reject: to reject the article on the basis stated in the Review (the list of reasons for rejection: lack of alignment with the journal’s scope or relevance to the intended audience; plagiarism detection; breach of ethical publication standards; issues related to formatting and structural adherence; inadequate data presentation that hinders comprehension or replication; overreliance on outdated references or an excessive number of self-citations; subpar writing quality; employment of complex or inaccurate logic and data).

Reviewers are required to submit a Referee Report with constructive suggestions and recommendations in a prompt manner.

Revisions

In instances where the Editorial Office invites authors to revise and resubmit a manuscript, the journal requests a cover letter accompanying the revised submission. This cover letter should provide point-by-point responses to the major points raised by the reviewers, as well as addressing any substantive or methodological issues listed as minor points.

The Editorial Process

Decision Process

The final decision on whether to publish each submission is made by the editors, considering the reviewers’ comments and their independent assessment of the manuscript.

Resolving Conflicting Reviews

In cases where reviewers exhibit fundamental disagreements, the editors may opt to share all reviews with each reviewer. Additional comments may be solicited to aid the editors in reaching a decision. It’s important to note that decisions are not necessarily determined by majority rule, recognizing that experts may have differing opinions. Editors carefully assess reviewer recommendations and comments, considering them alongside the authors’ responses and any material that might not have been accessible to the reviewers. The Editorial office assures that the reviewers’ recommendations will be carefully considered, and their contributions are appreciated, even if the final decision does not align with the reviewers’ assessments.