Review Process

As a reviewer, you play a significant role in raising the quality of publications in Luminous Insights associated journals, and you also have a set of responsibilities that increase the review process quality.

If you have the time and capacity to provide a high-quality review, you can inform the editor. You can also recommend a colleague who has sufficient time and ability to do so). 

You may notify the journal editor about your review experiences so that the editor can contact you with manuscripts that best match your experiences. You can update your information and experiences continuously through the journal’s platform. The journal editor will let you know the deadline for submitting the review-the time allocated for review restricted to specific deadline. You may notify the journal editor if you wish to extend the review deadline. You will be required to declare any conflict of interest so that the review quality is not affected. Your declaration will not lead to elimination rather another opportunity to consult you to review another manuscript.

Among the matters related to a conflict of interest that must be declared, but not limited to, is that you work in the same institution of the author. Likewise, if you have previously co-written, shared, or published with the same author of the manuscript during earlier periods.

Luminous Insights developed guidelines to support reviewers at every stage of the evaluation. The journal will send an invitation to you to review a manuscript or case study through the journal’s editorial system (reviewers center). You can access it directly from your Email, you can reject or accept the invitation to request a review through your Email. The review includes all aspects of the manuscript (whether it is a research paper or a case study). You will answer all required fields in the Reviewers Center.

The fields that the reviewer will answer include all aspects of the manuscript, but there are several notable areas to consider such as Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methodology, Quality of communication, Layout and format, Statistics, Results, Conclusion/discussion, Graphics and tables, Implications for research, Originality, Language, and Ethics (see Table below for details).

The reviewer is not responsible for discovering violations of ethical, legal and professional standards of research conduct in the manuscripts. However, the reviewer may be in a better position to detect cases of research misconduct such as plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification. If you suspect research misconduct, please notify the editor as soon as possible. You can also mention this to the editor in the review report. For more policies related to research misconduct, you can refer to the editorial policy on the journal’s website.

Reviewers may evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria: 

Areas for consideration Criteria  
Title The article title clearly describes the research content.  
The title of the article explains the significance of research.  
The title includes the most important keywords.  
Abstract The abstract accurately reflect the content of the article  
All required fields in the abstract are covered.  
Introduction The introduction includes a summary of the current research literature that provides an appropriate context.  
The introduction includes a clear explanation of the study problem and the research question.  
The study problem is an evident challenge for the researcher.  
The introduction merges significant works used to build on.  
Methodology The methodology explained how the data were collected.  
The sampling method is appropriate.  
The sample is sufficient.  
The methodology explains the research procedures followed.  
Exact measurements description.  
The researcher used suitable equipment to analyze the data.  
The researcher used modern equipment to analyze the data.  
The researcher explained the methods used in detail.  
The research design facilitates answering the proposed research questions.  
Statistics Give attention to statistical analysis carefully.  
Logic and realism in statistics.  
The statistics are conveniently placed and easily identifiable in the research content.  
No common errors in Statistics.  
Graphics and tables Graphics and tables illustrate textual content throughout the research paper.  
Graphics and tables describe the data precisely.  
Graphics and tables are a vital part of the research paper.  
Presentation of graphics and tables is consistent throughout the research paper.  
Graphics and tables require no improvement by the author.  
Results Merits and appropriateness of the author’s analysis.  
A clear results presentation.  
Conclusion/Discussion The conclusions appropriately link the other components of the paper.
Provide reasonable justifications for concurrence or contradiction with previous theories  
The researcher’s claims are reasonable and supported by the findings.  
The author explained the importance of research to the body of knowledge.  
Implications for research The paper bridges the gap between theory and practice.  
The paper provides guidelines for applying the results of scientific research in several areas:  
In practice: The economic and commercial impact  
In teaching  
In influencing public policy  
Contributing to the body of knowledge  
In influencing society and public attitudes or the quality of life  
Best Matching the research results and conclusions with research implications.  
Layout and format The author followed the journal’s author guidelines in the manuscript presentation.  
Originality The contribution of the paper to the Body of Knowledge is evident.  
Study problem, the proposed research question is critical.  
The manuscript is level parallel to papers cited and used for theoretical development.  
The paper says something interesting.  
Quality of communication The paper clearly articulates its case.  
Expression clarity and readability.  
Attention is paid to a coherent sentences structure, terminology, acronyms, use of jargon.  
The paper content matches the technical language of the domain and the knowledge expected of the readers.  
Language The English used allows the author’s arguments to pursue. (In the case of poor English language, mention this to the editor in the review report with a recommendation to refer the author to editorial services.)  

Based on the reviewer evaluation, the reviewer may recommend the one of the follows:

Decline Submission: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication in the journal of innovations in digital marketing.

Resubmit for Review (major revisions):  The manuscript has potential for publication but significant revisions are required before publication can be considered. A review requires significant improvements, and this type takes weeks or months. This decision imposes due to shortcomings or problems in the manuscript that need improvements, such as addressing gaps in building the theoretical background, insufficient sample and the need to collect more data, conducting a more comprehensive and accurate data analysis, or even modifying the proposed research question if the reviewer is sure that the paper can append contribution to the body of knowledge.

Revisions Required (minor): The manuscript has potential for publication, but specific modifications need to conduct before publication considered. Mostly, the necessary amendments are relatively simple and do not take long. These modifications are made by following the author’s guidelines (e.g. Increase in the number of manuscript words, manuscript formatting, the naming of graphics and tables, the inclusion of additional evidence in the research literature, a decent explanation of the research results, the improvement of search implication, and else).

Accept Submission: The manuscript can proceed to the next step of the editorial process without any further edits.




©2021. Luminous Insights LLC. WY 82801. USA. All Rights Reserved.