Dear Sara Santos,

We have completed the review of your paper 20151204 Revision 1: “E-reputation and international QS ranking -
the relationship with the website of the Higher Education Institutions”.

On the basis of attached reviews and consultation in the Editorial Team, we conclude that your paper is of
significant interest for Revista Portuguesa de Marketing. However, it needs to be revised before we can make a
definitive decision.

You will find the required changes in the Editorial Letter and applicable Referee Reports, that follow in the next
pages.

We trust that you will find the reviews helpful in your consideration to revise the paper. Please send an electronic
copy of your reviewed paper to andrevieira@universidadeeuropeia.pt or rpm@ipam.pt, indicating how you have
addressed the required changes. Please note that your revised paper will be send back to the original reviewers.

Please contact me if you plan to revise, and a guess on how long it may take you.

Your interest and support of Revista Portuguesa de Marketing are truly appreciated.

With best wishes,

The Editorial Coordinator

Revista Portuguesa de Marketing | Portuguese Marketing Journal

Page 1/5 Email: rpm@ipam.pt
Website: www.rpm.pt
 EDITORIAL LETTER
Two blind reviews have been performed on your paper. Referees highlight some insufficiencies in the literature
review, methodological guidelines, discussion of results and conclusions, structure and clarity of language that
need to be improved before getting further into the review process of our journal.
RB02 considers the topic of this paper very relevant and original, however need some improvements, namely
better explanation of some hypothesis, a deeper analysis of results and the clarification about contribution of paper
to the marketing literature.
According to RB08, this paper presents an interesting approach to the impact of university rankings, however the
authors should deal with some specific comments related with the overall positioning of the paper, structure and
quality of English writing. Literature review is considered insufficient and needs to be restructured. Additionally,
this Reviewer suggests a deeper explanation in the methodology section regarding to research methods.
The Editorial team agrees with the referees and adds a few more suggestions:

 Abstract should follow this structure: objective(s); methodology; results; results implications;
 All headlines must be numbered.
We hope that the following comments of our reviewers will help you improve the paper in the future and we’re
looking forward to hearing from you.
With best wishes,
The Editorial Team

Revista Portuguesa de Marketing | Portuguese Marketing Journal

Page 2/5 Email: rpm@ipam.pt
Website: www.rpm.pt
 Referee Report RB02
QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION

1.Very inadequate; 2.Inadequate; 3.Adequate; 4.Very Adequate

1 2 3 4
1. Adequacy of subject x
2. Title and abstract x
3. Subject originality x
4. Quality of the problem x
5. Literature Review x
6. Methodological guidelines x
7. Discussion of results and conclusions x
8. Structure and length x
9. Clarity of language x
10. Reference’s relevancy and length x
AVERAGE 3,1

QUALITATIVE EVALUATION
The topic is highly relevant and original. Nevertheless, I find some of the hypotheses obvious. There is a need of
further explanation for hypothesis 2.
In my opinion, it is necessary to explain better the contribution of the paper to the marketing literature.
I think that the results are in need of a deeper analysis. For example, there is no explanation for the negative
relationship between the openness and the website ranking. Either for the lower variation explained of the Score
Ranking QS by the online presence.

Revista Portuguesa de Marketing | Portuguese Marketing Journal

Page 3/5 Email: rpm@ipam.pt
Website: www.rpm.pt
 Referee Report RB08
QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION

1.Very inadequate; 2.Inadequate; 3.Adequate; 4.Very Adequate

1 2 3 4
1. Adequacy of subject X
2. Title and abstract X
3. Subject originality X
4. Quality of the problem X
5. Literature Review X
6. Methodological guidelines X
7. Discussion of results and conclusions X
8. Structure and length X
9. Clarity of language X
10. Reference’s relevancy and length X
AVERAGE 2

QUALITATIVE EVALUATION
The paper presents and interesting approach to the impact of university rankings which I consider worth of
consideration for publication as junior research, should the authors deal with some specific comments related with
the overall positioning of the paper, the structure of the paper and the quality of English writing. Overall, the
quantity and quality of literature review is clearly insufficient and I suggest that you position the paper as an
exploratory study.
Quality of writing: First of all, I advise the authors to have the paper proof reviewed as the language clearly needs
improvement, starting with the title. Even English speaking authors have theirs papers proof reviewed and this is
something that can greatly enhance the quality of papers.
Introduction:
The topic is relevant and actual. However, there would be no need to go as far back as the XIXth century to justify
it, thus it is farfetched to include the first paragraph of the introduction to justify the relevance of the topic.
There seems to be a lack of consistency between the purpose stated in the introduction and the remainder of the
paper. Specifically, the last paragraph of the introduction states:
“This paper is based on an international research study that endeavors to answer the question: Is there a
relationship among e-reputation, international QS ranking and the website of Higher Education Institutions?
It aims to analyze the importance of the website of Higher Education Institutions and its association with e-
reputation and QS ranking as well as the relationship between e-reputation and QS ranking.” (bold added)
Despite mentioning exclusively the QS ranking in the Research questions stated in this paragraph, two rankings
(QS ranking and Webometrics) were considered in the empirical study.
The ranking chosen raises another question: While these rankings are described, there is no justification for the
choice made regarding the empirical study. Why were these rankings chosen? It should be stressed however that
the identification of which rankings and its characteristics is however not a literature review question but a
research design decision. An explanation should be provided for this option in the methodology section, followed
by the description of the rankings.

Revista Portuguesa de Marketing | Portuguese Marketing Journal

Page 4/5 Email: rpm@ipam.pt
Website: www.rpm.pt
Literature review:
This section shows a big confusion between constructs and conceptual framework and the operationalisation of
constructs for the purpose of the current empirical study. Presenting and describing rankings and websites’
measurement mechanisms (Alexa) does not pertain to the conceptual framework that leads to the proposed
research model and hypothesis. This section should only include the conceptual framework applicable to derive
the proposed hypotheses.
The hypotheses lack theoretical support and are confusing:
H1) There is a relationship between the website of the Higher Education Institution and the indicators of
international ranking QS.
H2) There is a relationship between the website of the Higher Education Institution and its e-reputation.
For both hypotheses, which aspect of the website is related to the indicators of international ranking QS and e-
reputation?
H3) There is a relationship between international ranking QS and e-reputation of and higher education
institutions.
Need to rephrase (of and?). More importantly, International Ranking QS is not a theoretical construct. The whole
section 2.4 is very confusing.
In terms of structure of the paper, the research model should be presented after the literature review, following the
different hypothesis and before the research methods. Although the research model is a positive contribution that
enhances the understanding of the relationship between the constructs, it must be stressed again that QS
International Ranking is not a theoretical construct and should not be displayed as such in the model. Reputation,
on the other hand, captured by the institution position in the QS ranking is a theoretical construct.
Research methods:
In this section explain clearly how your variables were operationalised and measured. Description of rankings and
justification for your options should be provide here. Identify the data analysis methods used to test your
hypothesis and justify your choice.

Revista Portuguesa de Marketing | Portuguese Marketing Journal

Page 5/5 Email: rpm@ipam.pt
Website: www.rpm.pt