Peer Review Process
Editorial Policy
Peer Review Process
This page describes how manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Applied Accounting and Business (JAAB) are screened, reviewed, decided on, and prepared for publication. It also sets out the standards that reviewers and editors follow.
p-ISSN 2685-5569 | e-ISSN 2686-2638 | Published by LPPM Politeknik Jambi
01Review Process Policy
On this page
Review model Workflow Timeline Evaluation criteria Independence Confidentiality Conflict of interest Decision authority Reviewer disagreement
Review Model
JAAB uses double-blind peer review: reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
Reviews are conducted through the journal's online system (Open Journal Systems). Correspondence may be used where needed. Reviewers are drawn from the journal's reviewer list and, where necessary, from other experts in the field.
Reviewers assess the scholarly substance and quality of the manuscript. The editors are responsible for style and format, and the authors are responsible for the content of their article.
Review Workflow
1Initial editorial screening
The editor checks whether the topic fits the journal's Focus and Scope. Manuscripts outside the scope are declined without external review, and the authors are told why.
2Scope and technical check
The editor checks that the manuscript:
- meets the submission checklist and follows the article template;
- is anonymised for review;
- raises no originality concerns under the Publication Ethics policy.
Manuscripts with problems that can be fixed are returned to the authors for correction before review.
3Reviewer invitation
The editor invites reviewers whose expertise matches the manuscript's subject and method. A reviewer who finds the manuscript outside their competence, or who has a conflict of interest, declines. The editor then invites another reviewer.
4Scientific evaluation
Reviewers assess the manuscript against the evaluation criteria. They submit a report with comments for the authors, confidential comments for the editor if needed, and a recommendation. Reports are returned to the handling editor or editorial secretariat.
5Revision
If revisions are requested, the authors revise the manuscript and explain, point by point, how each comment was addressed or why it was not. Revisions take one of two forms:
- Minor revisions are checked by the editor.
- Major revisions go to a new round of review.
6Editorial decision
The editor decides to accept, request revisions (with or without a new review round), or decline. The decision letter includes the reviewers' comments for the authors.
7Copyediting and production
Accepted manuscripts are copyedited and laid out in the journal format. Author information is restored at this stage. The authors check the proof and correct factual or typographical errors only.
8Publication
The article is published in the June or December issue, with a DOI and the licence stated on its article page. It then appears in the journal archive.
Timeline
| Reviewer assessment | Within a maximum of two weeks after the reviewer receives the manuscript |
|---|---|
| Author revision | By the deadline stated in the editor's decision letter |
| Publication | In the next available June or December issue after acceptance |
The total time from submission to decision depends on reviewer availability and on how many revision rounds are needed.
Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers judge the manuscript on its scholarly substance, considering:
| Criterion | Question for the reviewer |
|---|---|
| Relevance | Does the work fall within the journal's scope, and does it address a clear problem in applied accounting, business, or information systems? |
| Originality and contribution | Does it add to existing knowledge or practice, and is that contribution stated clearly? |
| Method and data | Are the design, data collection, and analysis appropriate, described well enough to be assessed, and applied correctly? |
| Technical accuracy | Are calculations, accounting treatments, tax computations, and references to standards and regulations correct? |
| Conclusions | Do the conclusions follow from the results, and are the limitations acknowledged? |
| Literature and references | Is relevant and current literature used, and is it cited accurately? |
| Presentation | Is the manuscript clearly written and logically organised, with informative tables and figures? |
Reviewer Independence
- Reviewers give an objective, evidence-based assessment and support their views with reasons.
- Where possible, reviewers are not from the same institution or research group as the authors.
- Reviewers do not ask authors to cite the reviewer's own work unless it is genuinely relevant.
Confidentiality
- Manuscripts and review reports are confidential.
- Reviewers do not share, discuss, or use the manuscript, its data, or their comments outside the review.
- Reviewers do not upload the manuscript to external services, including generative AI tools.
- Editors disclose information about a submission only to those involved in handling it.
Conflict of Interest
- A reviewer must not review a manuscript that involves them directly or indirectly. This includes recent collaboration, supervision of the authors, a personal relationship, or a competing interest.
- A reviewer who recognises the authors informs the editor and declines.
- Manuscripts written by editors or board members are handled by another editor.
Decision Authority
Reviewers advise; editors decide. The editor handling the manuscript makes the decision, under the overall responsibility of the Chief Editor. Decisions are based on the scholarly merit of the manuscript, the reviewers' reports, and the authors' responses. The authors' identity, institution, or nationality does not affect the decision. Nor does payment of any fee listed on the Author Fees page, which is charged only after acceptance.
Reviewer Disagreement
When reviewers' recommendations conflict, the editor does not simply count recommendations. Instead, the editor:
- weighs the reasons each reviewer gives and checks the points of disagreement against the manuscript;
- may invite an additional reviewer with the relevant expertise, or consult a member of the editorial board;
- explains in the decision letter how the conflicting comments were weighed and which issues the authors must address.
