The peer-review process of Advances in Business & Industrial Marketing Research (ABIM) is supported by scholarly expertise relevant to business and industrial marketing, marketing management, consumer behavior, strategic management, organizational performance, human resource management, organizational behavior, leadership, economics and development, sustainability, accounting, auditing, corporate governance, finance, operations management, entrepreneurship, innovation, digital transformation, and research methodologies within the journal's stated Aims & Scope.
Equal Main Scholarly Scope Principle: Every scholarly field explicitly recognized in the current ABIM Aims & Scope constitutes part of the journal's main scholarly scope with equal standing. Reviewer selection is determined by the specific manuscript's scholarly subject, theoretical or conceptual foundation, methodological requirements, independence, and availability, rather than any hierarchy among recognized fields. A manuscript may independently establish scholarly relevance through any one recognized ABIM field.
Under the manuscript categories stated in the current ABIM Aims & Scope, the journal considers Research Papers, Literature Review Papers, and Conceptual Papers. Manuscripts proceeding to external assessment normally undergo double-anonymous peer review by at least two independent reviewers. Inclusion in this public directory does not establish an assignment to any particular manuscript or guarantee a review invitation.
ABIM reviewer selection is driven by the manuscript's principal scholarly contribution and the expertise required to evaluate its theoretical or conceptual foundation, evidence, research design, methodology, analysis, interpretation, or literature synthesis. A substantive contribution to any one recognized ABIM field is sufficient for scope consideration. No marketing, industrial marketing, business, finance, accounting, or other disciplinary variable is mandatory when another recognized scholarly field independently establishes the manuscript's relevance.
Reviewers are selected according to subject relevance, theoretical or conceptual expertise, methodological competence, independence, availability, and potential financial or non-financial conflicts of interest. Additional qualified specialist reviewers may be invited beyond the public directory when required. The responsible academic editor documents reviewer assignments and retains responsibility for scholarly editorial oversight.
Reviewers provide impartial, evidence-based, constructive, and confidential scientific assessments. Reviewer recommendations are advisory; the responsible academic editor or Editor-in-Chief retains authority for scientific-editorial decisions in accordance with ABIM policies.
Reviewers must not contact authors directly, attempt to identify anonymized authors, delegate review work without authorization, misuse unpublished findings, request coercive citations, or disclose confidential materials. They must disclose relevant professional, personal, financial, institutional, supervisory, collaborative, or competitive conflicts of interest and decline an assignment when independence cannot be maintained.
Editors who also appear in the reviewer directory must not review, manage, or decide their own manuscripts or manuscripts for which they have a material conflict of interest. Conflicted submissions must be reassigned to another qualified and sufficiently independent academic editor.
Confidential manuscripts, supplementary materials, unpublished data, author information, review reports, and editorial correspondence must not be uploaded into publicly accessible generative-AI tools or external systems where confidentiality, appropriate authorization, and data protection cannot be assured.
Reviewer reports should be objective, constructive, specific, sufficiently evidenced, and respectful. Reviewers should assess the manuscript's scholarly contribution, theoretical or conceptual foundation, methodological or analytical rigor, evidence, research integrity, findings, interpretation, and relevance to the recognized ABIM scholarly field.
Review reports should distinguish substantive scientific, theoretical, conceptual, methodological, analytical, ethical, or interpretive concerns from minor presentation, language, or formatting matters. Recommendations should be proportionate to the scholarly significance of the identified issues and should not impose unnecessary disciplinary requirements outside the manuscript's recognized research field.
Reviews of revised manuscripts should focus on whether previously identified material concerns have been adequately addressed and whether any unresolved scientific or research-integrity issue remains. New substantial requirements should be introduced only when academically necessary and appropriately justified.
Researchers with appropriate subject or methodological expertise may register in the ABIM Online Journal System and express interest in reviewing. Registration does not automatically confer public reviewer-directory membership or guarantee a review invitation. Responsible editors assess scholarly suitability, independence, availability, and the journal's editorial needs before assigning reviewers.
The public directory reflects reviewer information supplied by the journal and does not certify the current availability of every listed person. Affiliations, scholarly profiles, and reviewer status should be administratively verified and updated as appropriate. Legitimate updates to this directory do not retrospectively alter completed peer-review records, editorial decisions, publication dates, DOI records, volume or issue assignments, or other established scholarly records.
Questions about review invitations, assessment deadlines, access to OJS, conflict-of-interest disclosures, or reviewer administration may be directed through the ABIM editorial office and official journal contact channels. Editorial coordination is managed by Muh. Haerdiansyah Syahnur, Managing Editor, while matters requiring principal academic editorial attention may be referred to Mohammad Ashoer, Editor-in-Chief.
Reviewer communications should ordinarily be conducted through the journal's official OJS workflow to support confidentiality, appropriate documentation, transparent editorial oversight, and consistency with ABIM peer-review and publication-ethics policies.