Peer Review Process

   Peer Review and Editorial Process

To ensure an efficient, secure, and transparent workflow, the journal utilizes ManuscriptPortal.com, a dedicated professional platform based on Open Journal Systems (OJS), to manage all submissions and the peer review process. Authors are highly recommended to submit their manuscripts directly through ManuscriptPortal.com. Authors also can submit their manuscripts to journal office at: mbrqsubmissions@gmail.com

 

  Initial Manuscript Evaluation

Immediately following submission, all manuscripts undergo a primary assessment to ensure they are complete and meet the journal’s basic submission requirements. Papers that pass this initial check are then evaluated by the Editor for alignment with the journal’s scope and academic suitability. Submissions rejected at this stage are not original research, have serious scientific flaws in terms of the research question(s) and hypotheses, data collection, data analysis, and discussion have poor language in terms of structure, jargon, and genre, or are not in the scope of the Marketing and Branding Research. Corresponding Authors of manuscripts rejected at the initial manuscript evaluation stage will be informed within 2 weeks of receipt.

The manuscripts that meet the minimum criteria are sent for double-blind review by at least 2 experts in the field of marketing and branding.   

  Double-Blind Review

Eligible manuscripts proceed to a rigorous double-blind peer review by at least two independent, anonymous experts. Reviewers’ feedback is shared with the author(s) so they can revise and improve their work. The Editor retains full responsibility for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of any manuscript, and this decision is final. The reviewers are requested to evaluate whether the manuscript is original research, is methodologically sound and robust, covers the most relevant literature review, has results which are clearly and concisely presented, has an elaborated discussion based on the research questions and hypotheses, and provides practical implications and suggestions for future research.  

A diagram illustrating the review and publication workflow is provided below: