Frontline Marketing, Management and Economics Journal (FMMEJ)
ISSN: 2752-700X
The Frontline Marketing, Management and Economics Journal (FMMEJ) relies on the expertise and dedication of peer reviewers to maintain the quality, integrity, and credibility of published research. Reviewers play a vital role in evaluating the scholarly merit of submitted manuscripts and helping authors improve their work through constructive feedback.
The journal follows a Double-Blind Peer Review process, ensuring that the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.
Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers are expected to:
- Provide objective, fair, and constructive evaluations.
- Assess manuscripts solely on academic merit.
- Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.
- Submit reviews within the requested timeframe.
- Identify strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement.
- Report any ethical concerns or suspected misconduct.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents.
Reviewers must:
- Not share manuscripts with others without editorial permission.
- Not use unpublished information for personal research or advantage.
- Protect the confidentiality of authors and the review process.
- Delete manuscript files after completing the review if requested by the journal.
Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
1. Originality and Contribution
- Does the manuscript present original research?
- Does it contribute new knowledge to the field?
- Is the topic significant and relevant?
2. Relevance to the Journal
- Does the manuscript fit within the journal’s aims and scope?
- Is the subject relevant to marketing, management, economics, business, finance, entrepreneurship, or related disciplines?
3. Research Quality
- Are the objectives clearly stated?
- Is the methodology appropriate and scientifically sound?
- Are the data and analyses reliable and adequately presented?
- Are conclusions supported by the findings?
4. Literature Review
- Is the literature review current and relevant?
- Are key studies appropriately cited?
- Does the manuscript demonstrate awareness of existing research?
5. Structure and Presentation
- Is the manuscript well organized?
- Is the writing clear and understandable?
- Are tables, figures, and references properly presented?
6. Ethical Compliance
- Does the manuscript comply with ethical research standards?
- Are there indications of plagiarism, data fabrication, data falsification, or other forms of misconduct?
Review Recommendations
After evaluating a manuscript, reviewers may recommend one of the following:
- Accept without changes
- Accept with minor revisions
- Major revisions required
- Resubmit for review after substantial revision
- Reject
Reviewers should provide clear reasons supporting their recommendation.
Constructive Feedback
Review reports should:
- Be professional and respectful.
- Focus on improving the quality of the manuscript.
- Provide specific suggestions where appropriate.
- Avoid personal criticism of authors.
- Distinguish between mandatory revisions and optional recommendations.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers should decline review invitations if they have any conflict of interest, including:
- Personal relationships with the author(s)
- Collaborative research relationships
- Financial interests related to the research
- Institutional affiliations that may affect objectivity
- Competitive interests that could influence judgment
Any potential conflict should be disclosed to the editorial office immediately.
Timeliness
Reviewers who accept an invitation are expected to:
- Complete the review within the requested period.
- Inform the editor promptly if delays are anticipated.
- Decline invitations when unable to provide a timely review.
Identifying Ethical Concerns
Reviewers should notify the editor if they suspect:
- Plagiarism
- Duplicate publication
- Redundant submission
- Citation manipulation
- Data fabrication or falsification
- Ethical violations involving research participants
- Any other form of academic misconduct
All concerns will be handled confidentially by the editorial team.
Reviewer Recognition
The journal greatly appreciates the valuable contribution of reviewers in maintaining scholarly quality and supporting academic advancement. Reviewers may receive acknowledgment from the journal in accordance with journal policies while preserving the confidentiality of the review process.
Publication Ethics
FMMEJ follows the principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviewers are expected to uphold these ethical standards and contribute to a transparent, fair, and rigorous peer-review process.
Through their expertise and commitment, reviewers help ensure that only high-quality, ethically sound, and academically valuable research is published in the Frontline Marketing, Management and Economics Journal.