Peer Review Process

The Journal of AI & Immersive Marketing (JAIIM) upholds rigorous scholarly standards through a structured, fair, and ethical double-blind peer review process. All submissions are evaluated based on their academic quality, methodological rigor, and relevance to the journal’s scope, which explores the intersection of emerging technologies and marketing innovation.

Criteria for Publication

To be considered for publication in JAIIM, a manuscript must meet the following criteria:

  • Provides compelling, well-supported arguments and conclusions
  • Demonstrates methodological rigor—qualitative, quantitative, mixed-method, experimental, or computational
  • Offers theoretical and/or practical relevance to marketing, technology, and consumer research
  • Advances scholarly understanding of AI, immersive technologies (VR/AR/MR), and data-driven marketing practices
  • Makes clear conceptual or empirical contributions that inform both academic discourse and real-world applications
  • Aligns with the interdisciplinary focus of JAIIM, engaging insights from marketing, communication, design, behavioral science, and technology studies

Review Workflow

All manuscripts submitted to JAIIM undergo initial editorial screening followed by a double-blind peer review process. Submissions outside the journal’s scope or lacking basic academic merit may be desk-rejected by the editorial team, occasionally with informal feedback.

Accepted submissions proceed to external peer review by at least two independent experts in the relevant field. JAIIM uses plagiarism detection tools (e.g., Turnitin or iThenticate) to screen all accepted manuscripts. A similarity score exceeding 25%, or the presence of inappropriate or undisclosed AI-generated content, may result in rejection or request for clarification.

Decision Outcomes

Based on reviewer evaluations, the editorial team may render one of the following decisions:

  • Accept – with or without minor editorial revisions
  • Revise and Resubmit – requiring substantial clarification, reorganization, or additional analysis
  • Reject – due to lack of originality, insufficient contribution, or significant methodol