Guide for Reviewers

Introduction

Advances in Consumer Research employs a Double-Blind Peer Review process to ensure the highest standards of academic quality, fairness, and objectivity. Reviewers play a critical role in evaluating the scientific merit, originality, and relevance of submitted manuscripts while maintaining strict confidentiality throughout the review process.

Double-Blind Review Principle

Under the Double-Blind Peer Review system:

• Authors do not know the identity of reviewers.
• Reviewers do not know the identity of authors.
• Editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly merit and scientific quality.

Reviewers should avoid attempting to identify authors and must immediately inform the Editorial Office if they recognize the authors or encounter a conflict of interest.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Conduct reviews objectively and impartially.
• Evaluate manuscripts solely on academic merit.
• Maintain strict confidentiality of manuscript content.
• Submit reviews within the designated review period.
• Provide constructive, professional, and evidence-based feedback.
• Identify potential ethical concerns, plagiarism, or research misconduct.

Evaluation Criteria

1. Relevance to Journal Scope

• Does the manuscript align with the aims and scope of the journal?
• Is the topic relevant to consumer research, marketing, management, economics, psychology, or related disciplines?

2. Originality and Novelty

• Does the manuscript present original research or innovative perspectives?
• Does it contribute meaningful knowledge to the existing literature?

3. Literature Review

• Is the literature review comprehensive and current?
• Are relevant studies appropriately cited and discussed?

4. Research Design and Methodology

• Is the study design appropriate?
• Are methods clearly described and scientifically sound?
• Can the study be replicated based on the information provided?

5. Results and Analysis

• Are findings presented clearly and accurately?
• Are statistical analyses appropriate and properly interpreted?

6. Discussion and Conclusions

• Are conclusions supported by the results?
• Are practical and theoretical implications adequately discussed?
• Are limitations appropriately acknowledged?

7. Writing and Organization

• Is the manuscript well-structured and logically organized?
• Is the language clear, concise, and academically appropriate?

8. References

• Are references relevant, current, and properly formatted according to MLA style?
• Are important sources adequately cited?

Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers should immediately notify the Editorial Office if they suspect:

• Plagiarism
• Duplicate publication
• Data fabrication or falsification
• Citation manipulation
• Ethical misconduct
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest

Reviewers should provide supporting evidence whenever possible.

Confidentiality Requirements

All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

• Share manuscripts with colleagues or third parties without editorial permission.
• Use unpublished information for personal research or professional advantage.
• Contact authors directly.
• Discuss manuscript content outside the review process.

Confidentiality obligations continue even after completion of the review.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline a review invitation if:

• They have a personal, professional, or financial relationship with the authors.
• They have collaborated with the authors within the last three years.
• They cannot provide an unbiased assessment.

Any potential conflict of interest must be disclosed to the Editorial Office before accepting the review assignment.

Review Recommendations

At the conclusion of the review, reviewers should recommend one of the following:

Accept

The manuscript meets the journal's standards and is suitable for publication.

Minor Revisions

The manuscript requires small modifications before acceptance.

Major Revisions

Substantial revisions are necessary before the manuscript can be reconsidered.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet the scientific, methodological, ethical, or quality standards of the journal.

Structure of Review Report

Reviewers are encouraged to organize their reports as follows:

Overall Assessment

Provide a brief summary of the manuscript and its overall quality.

Major Comments

List significant issues related to methodology, analysis, interpretation, originality, or scientific rigor.

Minor Comments

Identify issues related to language, formatting, references, clarity, or presentation.

Final Recommendation

Select one of the available editorial recommendations.

Review Timeline

Reviewers are requested to:

• Accept or decline invitations within 7 days.
• Submit completed reviews within 21 days of accepting the assignment.

Extensions may be granted upon request.

Recognition of Reviewers

The journal recognizes the valuable contributions of reviewers through:

• Reviewer Certificates
• Letters of Appreciation
• Annual Reviewer Acknowledgments (where applicable)

Commitment to Excellence

Through its Double-Blind Peer Review process, Advances in Consumer Research seeks to ensure the publication of high-quality, ethical, and impactful research. Reviewers are essential partners in maintaining the integrity and scholarly excellence of the journal.