Smart: Journal of Social Media Marketing and E-commerce (SMarket) employs a rigorous, objective, and transparent evaluation system to ensure the publication of high-quality scholarly research. To guarantee impartiality and maintain the highest academic standards, SMarket strictly utilizes a double-blind peer review method. Under this system, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are kept strictly confidential from each other throughout the entire evaluation process.

The step-by-step peer review workflow is as follows:

1. Initial Editorial Assessment (Desk Review)

Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Associate Editor conducts an initial appraisal of the manuscript. This stage ensures that the submission:

• Aligns with the journal's Focus and Scope (social media marketing, e-commerce, digital economics).

• Meets the basic formatting and structural requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines.

• Passes a strict similarity check using standard anti-plagiarism software (e.g., Turnitin, iThenticate) to verify originality.

Manuscripts that lack academic rigor, fall outside the journal's scope, or exhibit high similarity scores will be subject to Desk Rejection without being sent out for external review.

2. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial desk review are assigned to a minimum of two independent, external reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their established academic expertise, publication record in relevant economic and marketing domains, and absence of any conflict of interest.

3. The Double-Blind Review Phase

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on a comprehensive set of academic criteria, including:

• Originality and Innovation: Does the research offer novel theoretical insights or empirical findings to the fields of social media and e-commerce?

• Methodological Rigor: Are the research design, data collection methods, and econometric/statistical analyses robust and appropriate?

• Theoretical Framework: Is the literature review comprehensive and properly grounded in current economic and marketing theories?

• Practical & Policy Implications: Does the paper provide actionable insights for digital businesses, marketers, or policymakers (particularly in global or emerging markets like Indonesia)?

• Clarity and Coherence: Is the manuscript logically structured and written in clear, academic English?

4. Reviewer Recommendations

After a thorough evaluation (typically expected within 4 to 6 weeks), reviewers submit comprehensive feedback alongside one of the following recommendations:

• Accept without Revisions: The manuscript is ready for publication in its current form.

• Minor Revisions Required: The manuscript requires slight adjustments (e.g., formatting, elaboration on specific points, or minor methodological clarifications).

• Major Revisions Required: The manuscript has potential but requires significant restructuring, re-analysis of data, or theoretical expansion before it can be reconsidered.

• Reject: The manuscript is fundamentally flawed, lacks original contribution, or does not meet the journal's standards for publication.

5. Final Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the ultimate publication decision based on the synthesized reviewer reports. In cases where the two reviewers strongly disagree, the editor may invite a third reviewer to act as an adjudicator. Authors will receive formal notification of the decision, accompanied by the reviewers' anonymized feedback, to assist them in refining their research.