{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2023,11,24]],"date-time":"2023-11-24T00:11:04Z","timestamp":1700784664721},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"Wiley","issue":"4","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2014,10,1]],"date-time":"2014-10-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1412121600000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/termsAndConditions#vor"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["onlinelibrary.wiley.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Learned Publishing"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2014,10]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>ABSTRACT<\/jats:title><jats:p>This study examined the views of advertising academics regarding the peer\u2010review process in English\u2010language advertising journals. Three issues were examined. First, how do advertising academics assess the peer\u2010review process in advertising journals on the following dimensions: fairness, anonymity (truly double\u2010blind), timeliness, and effectiveness in improving the quality of research? Second, how do they perceive the ethicality of review process behaviors? Third, what steps do they suggest for improving the quality or integrity of the peer\u2010review process? Data was collected through a survey of US\u2010based advertising academics. The findings reveal that advertising academics believe that, for the most part, advertising journals are succeeding at fairness, protecting anonymity, improving the research of submitters, and avoiding ethical infractions in the review process. However, advertising academics would like to see improvements in timeliness as well as in incentives and guidelines provided to participants in the peer\u2010review process.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1087\/20140410","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2014,9,26]],"date-time":"2014-09-26T22:45:52Z","timestamp":1411771552000},"page":"301-313","update-policy":"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1002\/crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["The peer\u2010review process in English\u2010language advertising journals: a survey of US academics"],"prefix":"10.1002","volume":"27","author":[{"given":"Owen","family":"KULEMEKA","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"University of Oklahoma"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"311","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2014,10]]},"container-title":["Learned Publishing"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/api.wiley.com\/onlinelibrary\/tdm\/v1\/articles\/10.1087%2F20140410","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1087\/20140410","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,11,23]],"date-time":"2023-11-23T22:40:41Z","timestamp":1700779241000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1087\/20140410"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2014,10]]},"references-count":0,"journal-issue":{"issue":"4","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2014,10]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1087\/20140410"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1087\/20140410","archive":["Portico"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["0953-1513","1741-4857"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0953-1513","type":"print"},{"value":"1741-4857","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2014,10]]},"assertion":[{"value":"2014-10-01","order":2,"name":"published","label":"Published","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}}]}}