Editor Guidance on Reviewing for the Journal of Marketing Management

Background

This is a guide for people invited to review papers for Journal of Marketing Management and should be read in conjunction with the Guide for Reviewers from the JMM Editorial Office.

The Journal of Marketing Management (JMM) is fortunate to have an excellent community of reviewers who provide their time and scholarly insights to help authors improve their intellectual contributions. From my experience, our reviewers approach each contribution with an open mind, wanting to help their peers produce the very best pieces of work possible. Clearly, the current academic context is pressurised, with many demands being placed on us all, whether as teachers, authors or reviewers. We that in mind, we thank all of those who help us evaluate the material submitted to the JMM.

To help introduce those new to the academic community to the reviewing process, this short piece will briefly sketch out the issues that each reviewer should bear in mind when trying to evaluate a piece of scholarship. As Bagchi et al (2017) point out, being a reviewer is a valuable activity. It helps improve the scholarship that is produced. It allows us to see the emerging frontiers of marketing and consumption knowledge in advance. This is exceptionally useful. It means access to the cutting-edge, letting us read the insights of people who are pushing the theoretical, conceptual and empirical frontiers of our discipline. We see the best they have to offer and can help them reflect upon, revise and rework their ideas. In doing so, we develop our personal skills for constructively evaluating and engaging with many different types of scholar, thereby refining our ability to engage with our students and peers across various domains. Importantly, participating in the review process helps us forge relationships with a journal, its editorial staff and community.

You Have Mail

Upon receiving a review request, please respond to it. If you are too busy, that is understandable. If you need more time than indicated in the message, please acknowledge the issue and communicate with the Editor or Associate Editor. We can always try to accommodate. But simply ignoring review requests is something that should be avoided. This cuts to the core of a golden-rule approach to scholarly practice. Treat people as you would like to be treated (Babin & Moulard, 2018). After all, refusals to review are noted by all journals.

As an Early Career Researcher, I made a point of asking to be placed in reviewing systems, taking up the opportunity when it was offered, treating it as a learning experience. Stepping forward when others stepped back might get me the attention of an editor. Why, you may ask: simple. Becoming a reviewer is one means of flagging an interest in a journal. When editorial boards are revised, regular reviewers are frequently highlighted to the Editor for possible board membership (see also Cengher & LeBlanc, 2024; Griffin & Barczak, 2020). 

If you have received an email request to evaluate one of our submitted papers, please remember that timely return of your review is very important. We aim to make the process as efficient and effective as possible, so that all papers proceed in a timely fashion through the review process. If you cannot submit the review by the deadline, then please communicate with the Associate Editor. We would prefer to email an author and explain that a decision on their manuscript may be delayed, rather than receive a short, vague review that will not help us make an evidence-based decision (Ellinger et al., 2023). Reviews that do not substantively engage with the submitted work cannot meaningfully be used in the process, so will necessitate an Associate Editor securing another review, thereby slowing down the process still further.        

Good Fit?

Having opened the request, checked out the abstract, and indicated that you are happy to review the full document, we would ask that the first thing a reviewer should consider is the topic, paradigmatic approach and methodological strategies being used. Are they a fit for the reviewer? If they are, excellent. If they are close, but not a perfect match, then communicate with the Associate Editor so that they can understand any limitations that will be reflected in the review. For example, I have been asked to examine papers whose topic I am well versed in, but whose methodology I was not. By communicating this to the Associate Editor, the latter were in a better position to determine my suitability as a reviewer or if they needed to secure an additional evaluator with specific methodological knowledge.

Putting the topic to one side, the reviewer should seek to identify any possible conflicts of interest. Do you know the author? Have you seen a previous draft of the work? Have you heard it at a conference? Has someone mentioned working on the paper to you? If there is a connection that may introduce a conflict of interest, then you should decline the review request at whatever stage you realise (Babin & Moulard, 2018).

Please Don’t Use Automatons: We Asked You to Read It!

Having dealt with the basic issues, please remember that reviewers should not use AI technology when evaluating a paper. It should not be copied into any AI software or tools in any way, shape or form (Gatrell et al., 2024). Read the paper carefully from start to finish. When reading the manuscript for the first time, please remember that we all have personal biases, but try to let the author tell their story about what they’ve done and why (Bagchi et al., 2017; Houston & Hulland, 2021). What is the contribution that the authors’ are trying to make and how have they framed its importance? Are there any references that seem to be central to their argument? If a reviewer is unfamiliar with a piece of research that is being regularly cited, it may be worth consulting it, especially if the authors are using it as a springboard for their thesis, research questions or as a foil.   

Be Constructive, Not Adversarial  

Typically, reviewers will examine each section of a manuscript, spotting strengths and weaknesses. But always remember that everyone deserves our respect. This means being polite, empathetic and supportive (Ellinger et al., 2023; Griffin & Barczak, 2020) when attending to the content. The peer review process should be developmental and constructive not adversarial and destructive. Ellinger et al (2023), for instance, outline the kind of constructive review relationship that we wish to encourage. They suggest that reviewers should envision themselves as involved in a constructive conversation with authors, giving them guidance, but without being highly prescriptive.

What this means in practice is that we should expect and try to accommodate creativity, allowing colleagues to respond to our reviews and commentary in innovative ways (Ellinger et al., 2023). We do not all have to agree and certainly not every manuscript has to adhere to the formulaic strictures inculcated by a doctoral system and enshrined in some of the prominent outlets in the field (i.e. regarding structure, page length, largely mono-disciplinary focus). Normal science is the preserve of nearly all of us. But, we should let those with exceptional capabilities surprise us. This is how we generate new pathways for thinking, action and practice.

 As you’re reading the paper, start to sketch out a review. At the JMM we do not wish to be overly prescriptive about length, but short reviews that provide limited guidance do not generally help authors or the editorial team to make effective decisions. There are a couple of caveats, of course. A paper may be of such high quality that the reviewers do not feel there is much to add. These types of submissions are rare. Alternatively, there may be fatal flaws that cannot be remedied. This may possibly mean reviews are succinct. Registering these points, please consider the following questions when writing a review:

• What is the central argument of the paper? How have they studied the topic?
• What are the strengths of the paper? Is the argument original? Does it provide an appropriate contribution? Is the flow of the narrative coherent? 
• Have they situated the argument within the wider literature? Do they use relevant scholarship to frame their work appropriately?
• What are the weaknesses? Are there “fatal” problems with the contribution or its application and use of theory and methodology that cannot be corrected (Ellinger et al., 2023; Griffin & Barczak, 2020)?
• Are there biases that are unacknowledged? Are there unwarranted assumptions? Inconsistency in argumentation? Are these major issues (i.e. undermine the central thesis) or less serious (definitional shifts, general structure, flow and spelling that require revision and clarification)?
• What about presentation? Could this be enhanced through appropriate diagrams, tables and other visual methods?
• Are there any missed opportunities that the author should register? As reviewers, we may be able to point out relevant theories or debates within (or outside) our discipline that the manuscript can question, develop or extend, possibly opening up new lines for investigation (Sridhar, 2025).

Obviously, these questions are not exhaustive. They are intended to convey the idea that we should be offering authors clear guidance (Ellinger et al., 2023). This is where bullet-pointed critiques are useful. Give direct, focused, substantive feedback that is actionable, not vague. By vague, we mean feedback that requires extensive interpretation by authors (Bagchi et al., 2017; Houston & Hulland, 2021). If the latter does occur, and we can all be guilty of it, then when authors misinterpret what we have said, asserted, or argued, please be open to working with them, clarifying what was meant and giving them the opportunity to engage with this assistance going forward (Sridhar, 2025).              

Before You Copy and Paste Your CV as “Suggested” Reading for Authors…

While reviewers should feel free to provide guidance about areas that an author may want to consider, we would encourage all reviewers to be reflexive when suggesting their work to authors. Consider these issues:

• Does the recommendation of our publication(s) represent a legitimate attempt to help, based on expertise and collegiality (Burton et al., 2024)?
• Do the papers we advocate really have the potential to speak to the concerns of the submitted manuscript?
• Or is there a possible danger that suggesting our own work to authors could appear to be a coercive act (Burton et al., 2024; Wren, Valencia & Kelso, 2019), more reflective of self-interest than scholarly support?

If the latter, it introduces a power dynamic where an author will – more than likely – feel obligated to consult and cite all the recommended work. This is a form of citation boosting that is inappropriate (Wren et al., 2019). We need to take these issues seriously. Being reflexive should allow us to better appraise our personal blinkers. Is there a danger that careerism and an obsession with metrics are creeping into our evaluations, taking them away from the honest appraisal that they are meant to be, making them vehicles for personal, career-enhancement. It is all too easy for “market logics” (Burton et al., 2024) to seep into our professional practices, including our reviewing activities (cf. Gonsalves et al., 2021).

Take a step-back and look at the suggestions you’re making: would you be embarrassed to do so publicly? If it would make you blush, it may well be worth avoiding them.

References

Bagchi, R., Block, L., Hamilton, R.W., & Ozanne, J.L. (2017). A field guide for the review process: Writing and responding to peer reviews, Journal of Consumer Research, 43(5), 860-872. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw066

Burton, S., Basil, D.Z,. Soboleva, A. & Nesbit, P. (2024). Cite me! Perspectives on coercive citation in reviewing. Journal of Services Marketing, 38(7), 809-815. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-08-2024-0387

Babin, B.J., & Moulard, J.G. (2018). To what is the review process relevant? What’s right and what’s wrong with peer review for academic business journals. European Business Review, 30(2), 145-156. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-09-2017-0162

Cengher, M. & LeBlanc, L.A. (2024). Reviewing manuscripts for behavior-analytic journals: A primer. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 57(1): 71-85. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.1034

Ellinger, A. D., Jonsson, P., Chapman, K., & Ellinger, A. E. (2023). The ideal review process is a three-way street. Human Resource Development Review, 22(2), 251- 274. https://doi.org/10.1177/15344843231170030

Gatrell, C., Muzio, D., Post, C., & Wickert, C. (2024). Here, there and everywhere: On the responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) in management research and the peer-review process. Journal of Management Studies, 61(3), 739-751. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13045

Gonsalves, C., Ludwig, S., de Ruyter, K., & Humphreys, A. (2021). Writing for impact in service research. Journal of Service Research, 24(4), 480-499. https://doi.org/10.1177/10946705211024732

Griffin, A., & Barczak, G. (2020). Effective reviewing for conceptual journal submissions. AMS Review, 10, 36-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00162-z

Houston, M.B., & Hulland, J. (2021). Reviewers as developmental coaches. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,49, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00747-x

Sridhar, S. (2025). Constructive peer review made practical: A guide to the EMPATHY framework. Journal of Marketing, 89(3), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429241312127 

Wren, J.D., Valencia, A., & Kelso, J. (2019). Reviewer-coerced citation: Case report, update on journal policy and suggestions for future prevention. Bioinformatics, 35(18), 3217-3218. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btz071