Review Process

All submissions to the journal Marketing of Scientific and Research Institutions (MINIB) undergo a multi-stage peer-review process to ensure the high scientific quality of published content and provide a fair and objective evaluation of each manuscript.

We follow the double-blind review model, meaning that authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process.

1. Review Stages

Each submitted manuscript is first assessed for alignment with the journal’s scope and formal editorial requirements.

The editorial board conducts an initial content evaluation – only manuscripts that meet essential criteria are forwarded for scientific peer review.

Each manuscript is assigned to two independent reviewers who:

  • are not members of the editorial board,
  • are not affiliated with the same institution as the author(s),
  • have no known personal or professional ties with the author(s) to the best of the editorial team’s knowledge.

Reviewers are selected based on subject-matter expertise and academic credentials. The journal strives to ensure the highest possible level of independence and quality of reviews.

2. Review Format and Procedure

Reviews are submitted in writing using the journal’s standard review form.

Reviewers issue one of the following final recommendations:

  • accept without revisions,
  • accept with minor revisions,
  • accept with major revisions,
  • reject.

All comments must be listed, indicating their nature (minor/major). Authors are required to respond to each comment individually. A scientific justification must accompany any refusal to implement a reviewer’s suggestion.

In the case of major revisions, the manuscript is returned to one or both reviewers for reassessment to verify whether the revisions meet the journal’s quality standards.

The review form can be downloaded at the bottom of this page or directly from the following link: [Review Form – download].

3. Editorial Decisions

  • Two positive reviews allow the manuscript to proceed to the next stage of the publication process.
  • If one review is positive and the other negative, the editorial board decides whether to continue the process, considering both opinions.
  • Two negative reviews result in the automatic rejection of the manuscript.

The final decision on publication always rests with the editorial board.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s scope, as well as its scientific originality and value. The key evaluation criteria include:

  • relevance and novelty of the research problem,
  • theoretical or practical contribution,
  • methodological soundness (if applicable),
  • quality of data and analysis,
  • adequacy and currency of the cited literature,
  • structure, language, and clarity of argumentation.

5. Transparency and Confidentiality

Reviews remain confidential and are not made public.

The identities of individual reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

Once a year, the journal publishes a list of external reviewers who collaborated with the editorial board.

The journal pays a reviewer’s fee for each completed review