Overview & Review Policy

Pinisi Journal of Digital Marketing (PJDM) is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific rigor and publication ethics. To ensure absolute impartiality, research quality, and novel contributions to the fields of digital marketing, e-business, e-government, and e-administration, PJDM operates a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review Policy. Under this mechanism, both the identities of the authors and the peer reviewers are strictly anonymized throughout the entire evaluation workflow.

Step-by-Step Review Workflow

[1. Submission] ➔ [2. Desk Evaluation & Screening] ➔ [3. Double-Blind Review Assignment]

                                                                  │

[6. Publication] ◄─ [5. Editorial Board Decision] ◄─ [4. Reviewer Evaluation]

1. Manuscript Submission & Desk Screening

All manuscripts must be submitted electronically via the journal's Online Submission portal. Upon receipt, the Managing Editor conducts an administrative check covering:

• Adherence to the Author Guidelines and formatting template.
• Similarity check via Turnitin (maximum allowed index is 35%).
• Verification that the submission falls directly within the Focus and Scope of PJDM.

2. Editorial Desk Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief (or a designated Associate Editor) conducts a preliminary content assessment to evaluate the manuscript’s conceptual contribution, methodology, and theoretical baseline. Submissions that lack scholarly novelty, fall outside the scope, or exhibit severe methodological flaws will be desk-rejected without external evaluation.

3. Reviewer Selection & Anonymized Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two (2) independent peer reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their proven expertise in digital communications, AI in marketing, public sector e-services, or data governance. Authors’ names, affiliations, and acknowledgments are removed from the review copy to ensure objective analysis.

4. Evaluation Criteria & Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers assess the manuscript using the journal’s standardized evaluation rubric. Key criteria include:

• Scope Alignment & Novelty: Originality of the research in advancing digital marketing or cross-domain e-services.
• Methodological Rigor: Robustness of data collection, sampling techniques, and statistical/qualitative tools (e.g., PLS-SEM, Machine Learning, Case Analysis).
• Literature & Synthesis: Critical analysis of contemporary literature (APA 7th style) and theoretical grounding.
• Practical & Managerial Relevance: Applicability of findings for commercial enterprise marketers or public sector administrators.

Based on their evaluation, reviewers submit one of the following formal recommendations:

1. Accept Submission: The article meets all standards and requires no changes.
2. Revisions Required (Minor): The paper needs minor formatting, editorial, or structural adjustments.
3. Resubmit for Review (Major): The manuscript requires substantial theoretical, empirical, or analytical revisions and will undergo a second round of review.
4. Decline Submission: The manuscript lacks sufficient rigor, novelty, or empirical evidence.

5. Author Revision & Feedback Loop

The Editorial Board compiles the reviewer reports and transmits the decision letter to the corresponding author. Authors receiving revision requests are required to:

• Submit a revised manuscript highlighting all changes made.
• Provide a detailed Point-by-Point Response Letter addressing each reviewer comment.

6. Final Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the definitive acceptance decision based on the quality of the author’s revisions and reviewer re-evaluations. The decision of the Editorial Board is final.

7. Production & Open Access Publishing

Accepted articles move into the copyediting, typesetting, DOI assignment, and final proofreading stages. Once finalized, articles are published online under the journal’s Open Access policy to maximize global readership and scholarly impact.