32 Review Process

Communicate your review by O. C. Ferrell:

  1. Paragraph

    1. contextualize the research

    2. convey the key message of the research

    3. be positive about what was done well

  2. Paragraph:

    1. Is the paper well written, interesting and important?

    2. Are the methods, data, etc. appropriate?

    3. Does the data support the findings?

  3. Paragraphs: Numbers, topics-examples of an issue:

    1. Factual errors

    2. Invalid arguments

    3. length/journal guidance

    4. Paths to improve the research

Why review?

  • Contribution/ Give back to the community

  • Get to the fore front of current research

  • Understand what a strong paper looks like

Documenting your reviews

  • Use publons.com to document manuscripts you reviewed for promotion and CV

  • to verify your review, send the “thank you for reviewing” email to reviews@publons.com

The review process:

  • Journals always look for reviewers

    • Get involved and email your CV to editor, or area editor.
  • Do not wait to answer whether you review or not.

Responding to reviews

  • Turn around in 3 months

  • R & R: reject and resubmit (new). The turn around will be sent to a new set of reviewers

  • R & R: review and resubmit.

32.1 Review at JM

For data replication submission, read here

For detail, read here

JM articles should have:

  1. New knowledge

  2. Real-world marketing topics and problems (i.e., relevance to stakeholders)

  3. Validity (i.e., good approximation of the truth)

Expected quality review process:

  1. Fairness

  2. Reviewers should have reasonable knowledge

  3. No conflicts of interests

  4. Consistency

    1. Interesting and important
    2. Empirical rigor
    3. Conceptual rigor
    4. Relevance
    5. Constructive
    6. Risk-taking
  5. Not a vote-counting exercise (i.e., number of rejections from reviewers)

  6. Responsible

    1. Respect author’s original objective

    2. Explain fatal flaws

    3. Privacy

  7. Timely: reviewers (three weeks after the review invitation) and AEs (within two weeks)

  8. Roadmap


  • 2 single-spaced pages

  • reviewers number their comments.

  • Suggested structure:

    • A short synopsis of the paper and its findings

    • Evaluate the contribution: Suggestions to improve contribution(if needed)

    • Identify major strengths, weaknesses, recommendations regarding

      • conceptual

      • empirical

    • Readability

    • Minor comments and suggestions

32.2 Review Process Back end

When you submit an article

  • Plagiarism check

  • Repeat submission check

  • An editor reviews the paper for suitability (might be desk-reject)

  • An area/associate editor is assigned

  • Reviewers (2-3) are assigned

Reviewers are chosen based on

  • your reference list

  • your suggested list of reviewers

  • the editor’s knowledge of the domain

  • Candidate reviewers that declined to review

  • web search

  • a publisher’s database