M A R K E T I N G   S C I E N C E
Reviewer Manuscript Evaluation Form



Please e-mail this form to mktgsci@cba.ufl.edu.  Completing the form on-line does NOT 
transmit the form to us.

Please note the manuscript # in the e-mail subject header.

Reviewing many manuscripts require expertise in multiple areas.  If you are ONLY comfortable reviewing 
some parts of this manuscript, PLEASE just review those parts.

For example, if your expertise involves the methods rather than the problem area, you may restrict your 
review to whether the manuscript properly employed the methods with sufficient precision to justify the 
conclusions.  If your expertise is only in the substantive domain (related to the conclusions), you may 
restrict your review to the evaluation of the relative novelty and potential impact of the results.

Marketing Science encourages you to provide WHATEVER feedback you can regardless of whether that 
feedback involves all or only part of the manuscript.  Thanks you very much for your time, effort and 
contribution to Marketing Science.


Thank you for using our manuscript evaluation form! 
It makes our job much easier.


Please answer the following questions on this document.
ANSWERS 1 THROUGH 7 ARE GIVEN TO THE AUTHOR.  
Add lines when necessary.





MANUSCRIPT #:  




1.  Is the topic of this manuscript important?  If not, why?   (For example, is the research question interesting and important?)





2.  Does the manuscript provide sufficient information to make an evaluation?  If not, what information is needed?





3.  What are the strengths and weaknesses of this manuscript?


4.  Would the stated contribution (assuming it was achieved) be sufficient for publication?  If no, why?


5.  Do the authors achieve their stated contribution (see the submission form)?
     If not, what do they still need to do? (For fast track submissions, please stress remedies with deletions over additions.)

6.  Is the actual current contribution sufficient for publication?  (For example, are the findings important? Are the findings new?)  


7.  Does this manuscript make mistakes?  If so, are they correctable?






8.  Are revisions necessary?  If so, what revisions need to be made?









THE FOLLOWING ANSWERS ARE NOT GIVEN TO THE AUTHORS.
These answers are given to the Area Editor and Editor only.  Please put personal 
comments to only the editor (not the AE or reviewers) in a cover letter.


* * * * * * * * * POSSIBLE ACTIONS   * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
  Informational Response – ask for more information before asking for a revision.
  Reject – a revision is unlikely to correct deficiencies in this manuscript
  Reject but allow resubmission – allow a complete re-write but send it to another reviewer
  Request more information – ask the authors to provide more information and answer your questions
  Request major (risky) revisions – ask for revisions but warn the authors that revisions might be insufficient
  Revisions – ask for specific revisions that are likely to make the manuscript publishable
  Conditional accept – accept but request minor revisions 
  Accept "as is?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

9.	What is your recommendation?  Why?









10. OPTIONAL:  If the authors claim to revise as you suggest, would you be willing to review 
the revision?


11. OPTIONAL:  Does the manuscript's length match its contribution?  If not, what 
should be "cut"?


12. OPTIONAL:  You may provide here any comments that you do not want the 
author(s) to receive.








If you wish, you may attach a page or two of additional comments for the authors.  
These comments may include points on specific pages.  Identifying needed corrections 
is useful.