Review Process

All submissions to the journal Marketing of Scientific and Research Organizations (MINIB) undergo a multi-stage peer-review process to ensure the high scientific quality of published content and to provide a fair, objective, and transparent evaluation of each manuscript.
The journal adheres to internationally recognized standards of publication ethics, including COPE guidelines.

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

Editorial Screening (Preliminary Evaluation)

All submitted manuscripts are subject to an initial editorial screening (desk review).

At this stage, the editorial office assesses:

  • compliance with the journal’s scope,
  • adherence to formal and editorial requirements,
  • basic scientific quality and relevance of the manuscript,
  • compliance with ethical standards (including originality and proper citation practices).

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected at this stage without external peer review.

Review Stages

Each manuscript that passes the initial screening is evaluated by at least 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, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the author(s).

Reviewers are selected based on their subject-matter expertise and academic achievements to ensure high-quality and independent evaluation.

Reviewers are invited through the Editorial System. Each reviewer receives an individual email invitation with a link, allowing them to access the manuscript and accept or decline the review.

Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethics

Reviewers play a key role in maintaining the quality and integrity of scientific publications. They are expected to provide an objective, fair, and constructive evaluation; to complete their reviews by the agreed-upon deadline; to notify the editorial board if they are unable to complete a review; and to disclose any conflicts of interest and recuse themselves if necessary. Detailed guidelines in this regard have been established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and are available at: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers.

All materials received for review must be treated as strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share manuscripts with third parties or use unpublished data or ideas for their own benefit.

Reviewers should also report any suspicions of plagiarism, fabrication, or falsification of data, as well as violations of ethical principles.

Review Format and Procedure

Reviews are completed using the journal’s standard review form available in the Editorial System.

After accepting the invitation, reviewers access the manuscript and submit their evaluation directly through the system by completing the review form.

Reviewers issue one of the following final recommendations:

  •  Accept as written with no revisions required;
  • Accept with minor revisions and no second review necessary;
  • Accept with minor revisions and a second review required;
  • Require major revisions and allow resubmission for further review;
  • Reject the manuscript.

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.

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 Editor-in-Chief 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 is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

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.

Transparency and Confidentiality

Reviews remain confidential and are not made public.

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

Skip to content