The peer review procedure plays a crucial role in the publication of scholarly works. This practice serves to confirm that the paper aligns with the field’s norms, while also offering authors valuable feedback and constructive commentary, ultimately enhancing the paper’s caliber.

The Editorial Board extends an invitation to the Reviwer Board to engage in the assessment of articles, aligning with their specific scientific interests. Additionally, members of the Editorial Board may also undertake the role of reviewers. Conversely, individuals from the Editorial Office, including managing and technical editors, are not involved in the review process and do not possess decision-making authority over papers.

Notably, the Marketing and Management of Innovations employs a double-blind peer review system, which typically spans a duration of approximately up to three months. The review process comprises these stages:

1. Submission. The manuscript, along with a co-author-signed cover letter, is submitted to the Editorial Office by the corresponding author. The Managing Editor assesses the paper to ensure it aligns with the Journal’s focus and Instruction for Authors, while also verifying its adherence to essential formatting and style standards. This evaluation also encompasses a plagiarism check, with the Journal employing StrikePlagiarism and iThenticate for this purpose. Manuscripts failing to meet the specified criteria may face rejection.
2. Internal Review. The Editor-in-Chief conducts an evaluation to gauge the paper’s appropriateness, as well as to assess its quality, significance, and uniqueness. Following this assessment, the Editor-in-Chief decides whether the paper will advance to the subsequent phase of the review process or face rejection. Manuscripts that are rejected will not undergo further review, and the author is not permitted to resubmit the manuscript for reconsideration. The initial decision on the manuscript is typically made within a three week.
3. Appointing Responsible Editor and Reviewers. Once the paper successfully clears the initial screening, the Editor-in-Chief designates a Responsible editor from the pool of section editors. The Responsible editor assumes the duties of selecting suitable peer reviewers with expertise in the pertinent field. Subsequently, the Responsible editors dispatches the manuscript for a double-blind peer review, involving two reviewers, or in unique situations, more. Given the journal’s use of the double-blind peer review model, both reviewers and authors maintain anonymity throughout the evaluation process.
4. Peer Review. Reviewers are expected to rigorously avoid conflicts of interest, validate their expertise in the subject matter, and have a clear understanding of the precise review criteria. Reviewers retain the option to decline reviewing an article (Guidelines for reviewers). Should reviewers agree to the task, they are required to submit a Referee Report with constructive suggestions and recommendations in a prompt manner. During this stage, the Editorial Office also notifies the author that their manuscript is undergoing a double-blind peer review process. 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).

5. Revision. The Responsible Editor communicates with Author(s) and Reviewers to make improvement of the paper regarding to the Reviewers’ suggestions. For revisions, authors are provided with a chance to enhance their manuscript by incorporating feedback from reviewers and the Responsible Editor. The corresponding author is responsible for resubmitting the revised paper. Furthermore, authors are required to include a Response to Reviewers’ Comments document, addressing all feedback received from referee reports. If authors hold differing perspectives from the reviewers, they can present their own arguments. It’s essential to note that the Editorial Board does not necessarily endorse the viewpoints and conclusions presented in the articles. Authors are accountable for the accuracy and reliability of the information they present, which includes titles, statistical data, surnames, and quotations. The Responsible Editors and Editorial Office organize the communication with Reviewers and corresponding authors within paper revision.
6. Decision. Following the review process, the Responsible Editor conveys the review outcomes and their own decision on to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief then renders the ultimate decision regarding the acceptance of the paper for publication. Authors are subsequently provided with the review results, along with anonymous Referee Reports if necessary. Authors are granted the opportunity to appeal the Editor-in-Chief’s decision by presenting their own arguments and explanations. Should the manuscript face rejection, the decision is communicated to the authors. The accepted paper sends for further publishing production.
7. Production and Publication. In the event of acceptance, the publication process commences. All co-authors are required to endorse the Authors’ Agreement for the publication of the revised manuscript.