The Editorial Board of the Marketing invites members of the academic community working in various areas of marketing to register as reviewers for the journal through the Asistent system. Upon receiving a manuscript, after a preliminary evaluation, the Editor-in-Chief decides whether to send the manuscript for review or reject it due to a lack of alignment with the journal's focus and themes, as well as inadequate quality and contribution. If the Editor-in-Chief assesses that the manuscript has potential for publication, it is forwarded to selected reviewers for more detailed consideration. As a rule, at least two reviewers should evaluate the manuscript.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When a specific need for the review of a particular manuscript arises, the Editor-in-Chief of the journal will send an invitation to the appropriate reviewer through the Asistent system, requesting their review of the manuscript. This invitation will be sent to potential reviewers' email addresses and will include the manuscript's title, abstract and the review deadline. The usual review period is four weeks. Potential reviewers are required to assess whether accepting the editor's invitation would lead to any conflicts of interest. The Marketing employs a double-blind review process, meaning that authors and reviewers do not know each other's identities. This aims to ensure impartiality in the evaluation of manuscripts. The review process is confidential, and reviewers must not share any information about the work with others without the consent of the editor and the manuscript's authors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When reviewing a manuscript, reviewers should pay attention to several important aspects. Although various types of submissions can be published in the Marketing, original scientific papers and review papers are especially welcome. The title of the manuscript should be concisely formulated and reflect the essence and main ideas of the paper. Regarding the abstract, reviewers should check whether it clearly outlines the purpose, describes the methodology, presents the main results, and highlights the originality and value of the study.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When analyzing the introductory section, reviewers should assess whether the authors have clearly stated the subject and objectives of their study, whether they have explained the research motivation, and how the study fills a gap in the existing literature. Current statistical data from relevant sources that indicate the significance of the paper's topic are also welcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the literature review section, reviewers should pay attention to whether the manuscript cites sources from relevant literature, particularly studies from scientific journals related to the research topic. Original research papers that present models grounded in relevant theories from the specific thematic area hold particular value. If the authors develop models and formulate research hypotheses, reviewers need to assess whether each hypothesis is based on the results of relevant prior studies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the case of original scientific papers, the research methodology section should clearly outline the methods and\/or sources of data collection, the size and structure of the sample, and the methods of data analysis. If a survey method was used for data collection and the paper presents a research model with a specific number of variables, it is essential to indicate the sources from which the statements used to measure the model's variables were obtained and adapted. Following this, in the section presenting the research results, it is necessary to assess whether the results are clearly highlighted and presented in the paper text and whether the paper contains an appropriate number of tables corresponding to the research findings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the concluding section, reviewers need to evaluate the quality of the conclusions and implications highlighted in the work. The manuscript should include appropriate theoretical, practical, and social implications. If the manuscript involves empirical research, it is recommended that it also contains a discussion comparing the obtained results with those of previous studies before presenting the implications. Finally, reviewers should assess whether the authors have clearly stated the limitations of the manuscripts and the directions for future research. Reviewers should also provide their assessment of the quality of communication, objectivity of the presented information, and the writing style of the manuscript.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
After completing the review, reviewers provide a recommendation to the editor regarding whether the paper should be accepted in its entirety, rejected, or sent for revision. In addition to the comments sent to the editor and authors, reviewers may write specific comments that will be forwarded only to the journal's editor. The final decision on the publication of the paper is made by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the reviewers' comments and suggestions, as well as the quality and originality of the manuscript.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Upon completion of the paper review process, the reviewers are sent a formal email of appreciation by the editor. Furthermore, in the final issue of the calendar year, a dedicated section titled \"Acknowledgment to Reviewers\" prominently features the names, surnames, and institutional affiliations of the reviewers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Marketing employs a double-blind review process for all submissions. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two reviewers. The reviewers operate independently of each other, and their identities are unknown to one another. Reviewers are selected solely based on their relevant expertise to evaluate the manuscript.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
During the review process, the Editor-in-Chief may request additional information from the authors, including primary data, if necessary for making a judgment on the manuscript. The editor and reviewers must keep such information confidential and must not use it for any other purposes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If authors have serious and well-founded objections regarding the review, the Editorial Board will check whether the review is objective and meets academic standards. If there are doubts about the objectivity or quality of the review, the editor will engage additional reviewers.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Redakcija \u010dasopisa Marketing poziva predstavnike akademske zajednice koji se bave razli\u010ditim podru\u010djima marketinga da se preko sistema Asistent registruju kao recenzenti \u010dasopisa Marketing. Prilikom prijema rukopisa, nakon preliminarne evaluacije, glavni i odgovorni urednik donosi odluku da li \u0107e rukopis poslati na recenziju ili \u0107e ga odbiti zbog neuklapanja u fokus i teme \u010dasopisa, kao i […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"page-templates\/unutrasnje-strane-template.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-68","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/marketing.sema.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/68","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/marketing.sema.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/marketing.sema.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marketing.sema.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marketing.sema.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=68"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/marketing.sema.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/68\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/marketing.sema.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68"}],"curies":[{"name":"Wordpress","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}