Peer reviewers contribute to the scholarly quality, integrity, rigor, relevance, and credibility of Advances in Business & Industrial Marketing Research (ABIM). Reviewers provide independent expert assessments to assist academic editors in evaluating manuscripts and to help authors strengthen the clarity, methodological rigor, scholarly interpretation, and substantive contribution of their work.

ABIM welcomes qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to its main scholarly scope, including business and industrial marketing, marketing management, consumer behavior, strategic management, business and organizational performance, economics and development, human resource management, organizational behavior, leadership, sustainability, environmental, social and governance (ESG), responsible management, accounting, auditing, finance, corporate governance, entrepreneurship, innovation, operations management, digital economy, artificial intelligence, and related scholarly fields.

Reviews should be objective, constructive, confidential, independent, respectful, proportionate, and evidence-based. Reviewer recommendations inform academic editorial evaluation but remain advisory. Final scientific-editorial responsibility rests with the responsible academic editor and, where applicable, the Editor-in-Chief.

ABIM applies double-anonymous peer review. Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject, theoretical, conceptual, and/or methodological expertise.

Authors submit a Blinded Manuscript separately from the Title Page & Author Information Form. Author identities are not disclosed to reviewers, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors. Reviewers must not attempt to identify anonymized authors, request unauthorized access to identifying information, or circumvent the confidentiality of the review process.

The normal scientific-editorial pathway is Submission → Editorial Screening → Independent Peer Review → Revision → Post-Revision Verification → Final Editorial Decision. Where a manuscript is accepted, it subsequently enters the applicable post-acceptance administration, copyediting, proofreading, production, metadata-verification, and publication processes.

ABIM recognizes three manuscript types: Research Paper, Literature Review Paper, and Conceptual Paper. Each type must be evaluated according to its stated scholarly purpose, theoretical or conceptual foundation, methodological or analytical characteristics, available evidence, and appropriate standards of academic rigor.

Research Paper: Original empirical or otherwise systematically designed research using quantitative, qualitative, mixed-method, experimental, quasi-experimental, archival, econometric, longitudinal, panel-data, cross-sectional, computational, behavioral, case-based, comparative, or other defensible original-research approaches.

Literature Review Paper: A rigorous scholarly review using an explicitly identified and sufficiently transparent narrative, integrative, systematic, scoping, structured, bibliometric, scientometric, meta-analytical, theory-oriented, concept-oriented, or other defensible literature-review approach that provides substantive synthesis and a meaningful contribution to scholarly understanding.

Conceptual Paper: A rigorous theoretical, conceptual, framework-development, or policy- and practice-oriented scholarly analysis that critically engages with existing knowledge, develops coherent analytical reasoning, advances concepts or theoretical relationships, and establishes a defensible original scholarly contribution.

Manuscript-Type Principle: Research designs, analytical techniques, data sources, software, review methods, theoretical perspectives, and conceptual or methodological contributions do not automatically constitute additional manuscript categories. Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts according to the requirements appropriate to their actual scholarly design and the three manuscript types recognized by ABIM.

The reviewer's primary responsibility is to assess the manuscript's originality, scholarly relevance, theoretical or conceptual foundation, research methodology, review methodology or conceptual approach, analysis or synthesis, interpretation, research integrity, evidence quality, and substantive contribution within the current ABIM Aims & Scope.

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should confirm that the manuscript falls sufficiently within their subject, theoretical, conceptual, and/or methodological expertise; that they can provide an independent, impartial, and evidence-based assessment; that no material conflict of interest exists; and that they can complete the review within the timeframe requested by the ABIM Editorial Office.

Reviewers must also be able to comply with ABIM confidentiality, reviewer-ethics, scholarly-independence, and research-integrity requirements. Where expertise is insufficient, a conflict exists, or the requested timeframe cannot reasonably be met, the reviewer should decline the invitation or seek guidance from the responsible academic editor promptly.

Reviewers are not expected to function as copyeditors. Language, formatting, citation presentation, and other editorial issues may be identified when they materially affect scholarly understanding, but peer review should focus primarily on scientific validity, methodological or conceptual rigor, research integrity, evidentiary support, relevance, originality, and scholarly contribution.

Manuscripts under review are confidential scholarly materials. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, forward, or use unpublished manuscripts, supplementary files, underlying data, research findings, review reports, editorial correspondence, or associated information for personal, professional, commercial, competitive, publication, or research advantage.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly, attempt to identify anonymized authors through internet searches or document metadata, disclose their own identities to circumvent double-anonymous review, or delegate review responsibilities to another person without authorization from the responsible academic editor. Any proposed involvement of another individual must be disclosed and approved in advance.

Relevant financial, professional, institutional, academic, collaborative, competitive, supervisory, or personal conflicts of interest must be disclosed promptly. When uncertain whether a relationship constitutes a conflict, reviewers should explain the circumstances to the responsible academic editor and allow the editor to determine whether continued participation or reassignment is appropriate.

Generative AI and Confidentiality: Confidential manuscripts, manuscript extracts, unpublished data, author information, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence must not be uploaded to publicly accessible generative-AI systems or external automated services where confidentiality, privacy, copyright, intellectual-property protection, data security, or appropriate information handling cannot be assured.

Any proposed use of external AI-assisted services involving confidential manuscript material requires explicit authorization from ABIM and appropriate confidentiality and data-protection safeguards. Reviewers must not assume that the availability of an AI tool constitutes permission to submit confidential scholarly materials to that service.

AI-assisted tools must not replace the reviewer's independent reading, critical analysis, methodological assessment, interpretation, or scholarly judgment. Reviewers remain personally accountable for the accuracy, originality, confidentiality, integrity, and academic justification of their review reports and recommendations.

Reviewers should determine whether the manuscript makes a meaningful scholarly contribution to at least one field explicitly included in the current ABIM Aims & Scope. All recognized ABIM fields constitute the journal's main scholarly scope and have equal standing. No recognized field is classified as secondary, supplementary, or subordinate to another recognized scholarly field.

A manuscript contributing substantively to management, economics, human resource management, organizational behavior, accounting, finance, marketing, entrepreneurship, sustainability, governance, innovation, digital transformation, or another recognized ABIM field must not be considered outside scope solely because it does not introduce an additional marketing, industrial marketing, or other disciplinary variable. Research integrating multiple fields is welcome but is not a requirement for scope eligibility.

1. Scope Relevance: Does the manuscript address a substantive scholarly problem within one or more recognized ABIM fields? Is the research, review, or conceptual question sufficiently connected to the current Aims & Scope, and is its scholarly contribution relevant to the field being investigated?

2. Originality & Scholarly Contribution: Are the research problem, knowledge gap, objectives, originality, novelty, and intended theoretical, empirical, conceptual, methodological, managerial, organizational, institutional, financial, economic, sustainability, policy, or practical contributions clearly articulated and academically defensible?

3. Literature & Conceptual Foundation: Is the relevant literature appropriately selected, sufficiently current where necessary, critically examined, and logically integrated? Does the manuscript establish an adequate theoretical or conceptual foundation rather than merely summarizing previous studies? Are proposed constructs, models, relationships, or theoretical arguments coherent and appropriately justified?

4. Methodological or Analytical Rigor: Is the research, review, or conceptual approach appropriate to the stated objectives, sufficiently transparent, accurately reported, and capable of supporting the reported findings, synthesis, theoretical arguments, interpretation, and conclusions? Are the design, evidence sources, analytical procedures, conceptual reasoning, and relevant limitations adequately explained?

5. Research Integrity: Are there credible concerns involving plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, misleading manipulation, inappropriate authorship, fabricated or unverifiable references, citation manipulation, peer-review manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other breaches of research or publication ethics?

6. Analysis, Discussion & Interpretation: Are empirical results, review findings, or conceptual arguments accurately analyzed and meaningfully interpreted in relation to the scholarly objective, theoretical or conceptual foundation, prior literature, available evidence, relevant limitations, and intended scholarly contribution?

7. Conclusions & Implications: Are the conclusions proportionate to the reported evidence, scholarly synthesis, or conceptual reasoning? Are theoretical, conceptual, methodological, managerial, organizational, financial, economic, sustainability, governance, institutional, policy, or practical implications supported rather than overstated?

8. Writing & Scholarly Presentation: Is the manuscript coherent, understandable, logically structured, and written in appropriate academic English? Are tables, figures, citations, references, terminology, evidence presentation, and scholarly arguments sufficiently accurate and consistent with ABIM's manuscript requirements, including APA 7th edition where applicable?

For a Research Paper, reviewers should consider whether the manuscript follows the applicable official ABIM manuscript requirements and presents a coherent progression from scholarly problem identification to theoretical grounding, methodology, evidence, interpretation, and conclusions.

Introduction: Does the manuscript establish a clearly articulated scholarly problem, relevant context, literature gap, research purpose, novelty, research questions or objectives, and intended contribution? Is the importance of the research explained convincingly?

Review of Literature: Does the manuscript critically evaluate relevant theories, concepts, and prior research? Is the theoretical or conceptual framework appropriate, and are research models, hypotheses, or propositions justified where applicable? Reviewers should not require hypotheses where they are inappropriate to the actual research design.

Research Methodology: Does the manuscript accurately describe the actual research design, study context, population or units of analysis, sampling or case-selection procedures, data sources, instruments, measurements, analytical techniques, model specifications, validity or reliability considerations, and applicable research-ethics procedures? Can the reported methodology support the findings and conclusions?

Results and Discussion: Under the applicable ABIM Research Paper structure, this section contains distinct scholarly functions for reporting empirical evidence and interpreting its meaning. Reviewers should evaluate both functions independently, even when they are presented under one principal heading.

4.1 Research Results: Are the empirical findings presented accurately, transparently, consistently, and with sufficient supporting evidence? Are quantitative, qualitative, experimental, archival, econometric, computational, comparative, or other applicable analyses reported appropriately? Are unsupported claims, material omissions, inconsistencies, or selective reporting concerns present?

4.2 Discussion: Does the manuscript interpret the principal findings meaningfully in relation to its theoretical or conceptual foundation, previous studies, research context, and stated contribution? Are agreements, contradictions, unexpected findings, limitations, and applicable theoretical, managerial, economic, financial, organizational, policy, or practical implications adequately discussed without merely repeating detailed numerical results?

Conclusion: Does the manuscript answer its research objectives, synthesize the principal findings and contribution, acknowledge material limitations, identify relevant implications, and provide defensible future-research directions? Do the conclusions remain consistent with the research design, actual evidence, and appropriate scope of inference?

Evaluation Principle: Research Methodology explains how the research was conducted; Research Results reports what the evidence shows; Discussion interprets the meaning and contribution of the findings; and Conclusion communicates what the study establishes. Reviewers should evaluate scientific adequacy rather than demand unnecessary repetition or changes that conflict with the applicable manuscript structure.

For a Literature Review Paper, reviewers should evaluate the transparency and appropriateness of the declared review approach, the adequacy and reliability of the literature base, the rigor of the synthesis, the scholarly significance of the interpretation, and the originality and usefulness of the contribution.

Introduction: Does the review identify a meaningful scholarly problem, literature gap, review objective, and justified rationale for undertaking the synthesis? Is the intended scholarly contribution sufficiently clear?

Review Methodology: Is the actual review design identified accurately and described transparently? Are literature sources, database searches, search terms, eligibility criteria, screening procedures, selection processes, duplicate handling, analytical techniques, and synthesis approaches reported where applicable to the review design genuinely conducted?

Review Findings / Literature Synthesis: Does the manuscript move beyond descriptive listing or sequential summaries of publications to identify meaningful themes, concepts, theoretical perspectives, evidence patterns, scholarly disagreements, methodological developments, unresolved problems, or research gaps? Are the literature sources sufficiently appropriate and traceable?

Discussion: Does the review interpret its synthesis at a substantive scholarly level? Does it explain what the accumulated evidence establishes, how the findings extend or challenge existing knowledge, which limitations or disagreements remain, and what theoretical, conceptual, methodological, managerial, economic, financial, institutional, policy, or practical implications can legitimately be drawn?

Conclusion: Does the manuscript answer the review objectives, synthesize its principal insights, explain originality and scholarly contribution, acknowledge relevant limitations, and present a focused future-research agenda supported by the reviewed literature?

Review-Methodology Integrity: A manuscript should not be treated as systematic, PRISMA-based, scoping, bibliometric, meta-analytical, database-search-based, or another specialized review simply because the corresponding label appears in the manuscript. Reviewers should assess whether the actual methods, procedures, evidence, and documentation substantiate the claimed design.

Bibliometric and Mapping-Based Reviews: Bibliometric mapping, citation-network analysis, co-word analysis, descriptive publication trends, or visualizations alone do not establish an adequate Literature Review Paper contribution. Such techniques should support meaningful theoretical, conceptual, methodological, substantive, or literature-based synthesis and scholarly interpretation.

For a Conceptual Paper, reviewers should evaluate the importance of the scholarly problem, critical engagement with relevant theories and literature, transparency and coherence of analytical reasoning, originality of the proposed concepts or framework, and significance of the contribution to theoretical, conceptual, methodological, managerial, institutional, policy, or practical understanding.

Introduction: Does the manuscript establish a meaningful theoretical or conceptual problem, relevant scholarly gap, clear purpose, intellectual significance, and defensible rationale for conceptual development? Is the intended original contribution clearly explained?

Theoretical and Conceptual Foundations: Are the selected theories, concepts, constructs, scholarly debates, and prior frameworks appropriate and critically assessed? Does the literature establish a defensible foundation for further conceptual development rather than merely summarize established findings?

Conceptual Development and Analysis: Is the conceptual reasoning transparent, coherent, logically structured, and supported by relevant scholarly literature? Are proposed relationships, theoretical propositions, classifications, conceptual frameworks, or models clearly developed and justified?

Discussion: Does the manuscript explain how the proposed conceptual contribution extends, integrates, refines, challenges, or clarifies existing scholarly knowledge? Are the theoretical, conceptual, methodological, managerial, organizational, practical, or policy implications appropriately explained without overstating what conceptual reasoning alone can establish?

Conclusion: Does the manuscript synthesize its central conceptual contribution, explain originality and intellectual significance, acknowledge material theoretical or analytical limitations, and identify meaningful directions for future theoretical refinement or empirical evaluation?

Conceptual Integrity: Reviewers should not require a Conceptual Paper to present primary empirical data or statistical hypothesis testing when these are not part of its legitimate scholarly design. However, proposed concepts, models, relationships, and arguments must be appropriately justified. Untested propositions must not be represented as established empirical findings or demonstrated causal relationships without supporting evidence.

A high-quality review should distinguish major scholarly concerns from minor corrections, explain why each significant issue matters, and provide clear, constructive, sufficiently specific, and actionable recommendations when revision is feasible. Reviewer comments should focus on the manuscript, evidence, methodology, conceptual reasoning, scholarly interpretation, and contribution rather than the personal characteristics of the authors.

Personal remarks, insulting or discriminatory language, unsupported allegations, unjustified methodological demands, and requests unrelated to scholarly evaluation are inappropriate. Reviewers should evaluate the suitability and limitations of methods actually used rather than automatically require a particular software package, statistical procedure, theoretical model, or review protocol when another defensible approach adequately addresses the scholarly objective.

A clear reviewer report may be organized as Overall Assessment → Major Comments → Minor Comments → Recommendation. Major Comments should address scientific, methodological, evidentiary, theoretical, conceptual, ethical, interpretive, or contribution-related issues. Minor Comments should address presentation, clarity, terminology, citation formatting, and other corrections that do not materially change the scientific assessment.

In accordance with the applicable ABIM OJS workflow, reviewer recommendations may include the following:

Accept Submission: The manuscript is scientifically and editorially suitable for acceptance, with no substantive revisions required. Minor production-related corrections, where applicable, do not alter the scholarly recommendation.

Revisions Required: The manuscript requires clearly identified revisions that can normally be evaluated by the responsible academic editor without automatically requiring a new round of external peer review.

Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires substantial scholarly, methodological, conceptual, analytical, or interpretive revisions, and further external review may be appropriate before an editorial decision can be reached.

Decline Submission: Serious scholarly, methodological, conceptual, ethical, evidentiary, scope, or contribution-related limitations do not support publication, or essential deficiencies cannot be adequately resolved through reasonable revision.

Editorial Decision Authority: Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not determine the editorial outcome through simple voting. The responsible academic editor considers the manuscript, independent reviewer reports, author responses, revised submission, research-integrity matters, scholarly contribution, and applicable ABIM policies before reaching or recommending the final scientific-editorial decision.

Where reviewer reports materially disagree, the responsible academic editor may evaluate the reasons for disagreement, request clarification, consult an additional qualified specialist, or obtain another independent review when necessary. Reviewer disagreement does not automatically require rejection or acceptance.

Suspected plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, data fabrication or falsification, misleading data manipulation, inappropriate authorship, fabricated or unverifiable references, citation manipulation, peer-review manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, misleading methodological claims, unethical research practices, or other serious integrity concerns must be reported confidentially to the responsible academic editor.

Reviewers should describe relevant concerns, supporting evidence, and their potential scholarly significance without independently investigating authors, contacting institutions, communicating directly with authors, or making unsupported allegations. The ABIM Editorial Office and responsible academic editors determine the appropriate follow-up under the journal's publication-ethics policies.

Citations should be evaluated for relevance, accuracy, credibility, and their relationship to the manuscript's scholarly claims. Reviewers may recommend genuinely relevant sources when there is a clear academic justification, but must not pressure authors to cite the reviewer's publications, ABIM publications, a preferred journal, colleague, research group, or other works primarily to increase citation counts.

ABIM applies a maximum overall similarity-screening threshold of 15% under its current author guidelines. Similarity percentages must not be interpreted mechanically as proof of plagiarism or originality. Reviewers should report significant concerns regarding inappropriate overlap, unattributed reuse, or citation integrity based on the substance and context of the material rather than a numerical score alone.

Authors may be asked to provide revised manuscripts accompanied by point-by-point responses to reviewer and editorial comments. Reviewers should assess whether the stated responses correspond to actual revisions, whether the supporting evidence is adequate, and whether the manuscript's remaining scientific, conceptual, or research-integrity concerns have been addressed.

Revision-Round Principle: When evaluating revised manuscripts, reviewers should focus primarily on whether previously identified substantive concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. Major new requirements should not ordinarily be introduced unless the revision creates a new material issue, new evidence reveals a previously unidentified concern, or a significant scientific or research-integrity problem was reasonably missed during an earlier evaluation.

Reviewers should distinguish unresolved scientific, theoretical, methodological, conceptual, or integrity issues from minor editorial matters that can appropriately be addressed through copyediting, proofreading, formatting, or production after final academic acceptance. Scientific-editorial acceptance must remain independent of administrative and publication-support functions.

Reviewers should respond to review invitations and submit their reports within the timeframe specified by the ABIM editorial system or communicated by the responsible academic editor. Timely, carefully considered reviewer participation supports fair editorial administration and responsible scholarly evaluation.

If a reviewer requires additional time, encounters a conflict of interest, determines that the manuscript falls outside their expertise, or becomes unable to complete the review, the ABIM Editorial Office should be informed promptly so that an appropriate extension, replacement, or other editorial arrangement can be considered.

Researchers, academics, and qualified professionals with relevant scholarly or methodological expertise may register through the ABIM Online Journal System and indicate their willingness to conduct peer review. Prospective reviewers should provide accurate information concerning institutional affiliation, scholarly specialization, research interests, methodological competence, and relevant academic or professional experience.

Registration does not automatically confer public Reviewer Team membership, an active reviewing appointment, or a guaranteed invitation. Reviewer selection is based on manuscript relevance, expertise, independence, availability, review quality, applicable journal requirements, and conflicts-of-interest considerations.

ABIM recognizes independent peer reviewing as an important form of scholarly service. Reviewers contribute their time, specialized knowledge, critical judgment, methodological competence, and professional responsibility to support the accuracy, credibility, integrity, and scholarly quality of the journal's published research.

Where administratively available and appropriate, ABIM may provide reviewer acknowledgements, reviewer listings, certificates, documentation of completed peer-review service, editorial records, or other suitable non-financial forms of professional recognition. Such recognition must respect reviewer confidentiality, applicable consent requirements, and the integrity of the double-anonymous peer-review process.

Reviewer service does not establish an employment relationship with ABIM and does not provide an APC discount, guaranteed manuscript acceptance, preferential scholarly evaluation, expedited peer review, favorable reviewer selection, guaranteed publication, or any other editorial advantage. Recognition remains separate from academic editorial decision-making and applicable administrative or publication-support activities.

The current ABIM reviewer framework is applied in conjunction with the journal's Aims & Scope, three recognized manuscript types, official manuscript requirements, editorial-independence standards, research-integrity requirements, and publication ethics. All recognized fields within the journal's main scholarly scope have equal standing in reviewer assignment and assessment of subject relevance.

Legitimate changes in the Aims & Scope, reviewer guidance, manuscript templates, reviewer directory, review forms, editorial procedures, or reviewer appointments do not retrospectively invalidate valid historical peer-review records, completed editorial decisions, or other established scholarly records. Updated requirements should be applied prospectively in accordance with applicable ABIM policies and valid existing editorial commitments.

Editorial & Reviewer Support: Questions concerning review invitations, OJS access, review deadlines, reviewer registration, conflicts of interest, reviewer assignments, or administrative aspects of peer review may be directed to the ABIM Editorial Office under the coordination of Muh. Haerdiansyah Syahnur, Managing Editor, through advancesresearch@gmail.com.

Principal Academic Editorial Contact: Matters requiring scientific-editorial attention may be referred to Mohammad Ashoer, Editor-in-Chief, through the official journal email editor@advancesinresearch.id.

Administrative WhatsApp: +62 821 9454 8786. Administrative messaging does not replace confidential OJS peer-review records, formal reviewer reports, or the official academic editorial decision-making process.

ABIM values the expertise, independence, confidentiality, ethical conduct, methodological and conceptual judgment, scholarly rigor, constructive criticism, and professional responsibility of its peer reviewers. Responsible reviewer participation strengthens the credibility of editorial evaluation, supports meaningful manuscript improvement, and contributes to the integrity of the permanent scholarly record.

The ABIM Editorial Office appreciates reviewers who contribute their time, experience, and independent scholarly judgment to the journal's double-anonymous peer-review process.