PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Journal of Marketing and Emerging Technologies peer review process are the following: 

Manuscript Submission
Authors submit manuscripts via the JMET online system and receive an acknowledgement with a unique manuscript ID. At submission, all manuscripts must comply with JMET Author Guidelines for structure, formatting, and referencing style, and authors must confirm the work is original, unpublished, and not under review elsewhere.

  1. Submission Requirements and Compliance Verification
    The editorial office verifies that author and manuscript metadata are complete, including full names, affiliations, emails, title, abstract, keywords, and recommended ORCID, as well as funding information (if any) and a conflict-of-interest statement. The office also checks that references are accurate and complete, including DOIs/URLs where available, and that all tables and figures are properly numbered, titled, cited in-text, and permissions are secured for any third-party material.

  2. Similarity and Integrity Screening
    JMET conducts a plagiarism/similarity screening and requires a similarity index of ≤ 15%, with improper copying and excessive overlap from any single source not permitted even if the overall percentage is low. Manuscripts that fail integrity checks may be desk rejected or returned for clarification where appropriate.

  3. Initial Editorial Screening (Section Editor)
    The Section Editor evaluates alignment with JMET aims and scope, assesses the manuscript’s novelty and scholarly contribution, and checks whether the theoretical framing and research design meet minimum standards for peer review. Submissions that are out of scope, methodologically weak, or noncompliant with core requirements may be desk rejected at this stage.

  4. Assignment to Handling Editor
    Manuscripts suitable for review are assigned to a Handling Editor based on topic and methodological fit. The Handling Editor confirms absence of conflicts of interest, ensures anonymization for double-blind review, and identifies appropriate reviewers with relevant expertise.

  5. Double-Blind Peer Review (Minimum Two Reviewers)
    The Handling Editor invites at least two external reviewers and administers a double-blind process in which both author and reviewer identities are concealed. Reviewers assess the rigor of theory and methods, validity of analyses, coherence of argumentation, contribution to strategy and sustainability scholarship, and the strength of managerial and policy implications.

  6. Reviewer Recommendations
    Reviewers provide detailed reports and recommend one of four outcomes: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Feedback is expected to be evidence-based and constructive, highlighting critical flaws, required improvements, and optional enhancements.

  7. Editorial Evaluation and Decision
    The Handling Editor synthesizes reviewer reports, resolves discrepancies through editorial judgment, and issues a decision letter with a prioritized revision roadmap. Decisions are based on contribution, rigor, integrity, and journal fit, with clear expectations for revision and documentation.

  8. Author Revision and Response
    Authors submit a revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response letter explaining how each reviewer and editor comment was addressed, with precise references to revised sections. Revisions must directly resolve mandatory issues and provide reasoned justification for any recommendations not adopted.

  9. Editorial Check and/or Re-Review
    Minor revisions may be verified by the Handling Editor without returning to reviewers, while major revisions are commonly re-sent to reviewers to confirm that substantive concerns have been adequately resolved. Additional rounds may proceed until the manuscript meets JMET standards or is rejected.

  10. Final Decision (Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board)
    The Editor-in-Chief, supported by the editorial team as needed, makes the final decision based on reviewer input and editorial assessment of quality, originality, and compliance. The final decision prioritizes methodological credibility, ethical integrity, and a clear contribution to business strategy and sustainability.

  11. Copyediting, Production, and Publication
    Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting for clarity and consistency, followed by layout/typesetting and final metadata checks, including references and DOI/URL completeness where available. Authors review proofs for typographical and formatting corrections, after which the article is formally published with disclosed dates (received, revised, accepted, published) and integrated into the journal’s publication record.