Peer Review Process
Peer Review Process
The SSIPMT Journal of Finance and Marketing follows a rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality scholarly research in the fields of finance, marketing, and business management. The journal adopts a double-blind peer review system, where the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process to maintain fairness and eliminate bias.
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editorial Office. The manuscript is checked for relevance to finance, marketing, and business research, originality and plagiarism using standard detection tools, and compliance with formatting and author guidelines.
Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements may be desk rejected or returned to the authors for necessary revisions.
Suitable manuscripts are assigned to the Editor-in-Chief or a Handling Editor based on subject expertise. The assigned editor evaluates the academic quality, scientific merit, novelty, originality, and overall suitability of the manuscript for peer review.
The editor selects two to three independent expert reviewers in the relevant field. Reviewers are chosen based on their subject expertise in finance, marketing, or related disciplines, research and publication background, and absence of any conflicts of interest.
The manuscript is evaluated under a double-blind system, where neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other's identities. Reviewers assess the manuscript based on originality, contribution to the field, methodological rigor, analytical approach, clarity of presentation, relevance to finance and marketing practices, and validity of results and conclusions.
Reviewers provide detailed comments along with one of the following recommendations:
- Accept as it is
- Minor revision
- Major revision
- Reject
These recommendations guide the editorial decision-making process.
The editor carefully considers all reviewer comments and makes a final decision, which may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. In cases of conflicting reviewer opinions, additional reviewers may be consulted to ensure a fair and balanced evaluation.
If revisions are required, authors are expected to address all reviewer comments and resubmit the revised manuscript within the specified timeframe. Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers for further evaluation to ensure all concerns have been adequately addressed.
Once the manuscript satisfies all academic, ethical, and quality standards, it is formally accepted for publication and proceeds to the production stage.
Accepted manuscripts undergo professional copyediting and proofreading to ensure clarity, consistency, formatting accuracy, and adherence to journal standards. Authors may be requested to review proofs prior to final publication.
