PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Every submission to Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan (AKUA) goes through editorial screening and peer review before it is published. The journal uses a double blind model, which means that the reviewers do not know the authors and the authors do not know the reviewers. Experts in the subject assess the scientific merit and the originality of the manuscript, its relevance to accounting and finance, and its fit with the scope of the journal.

Review model

Double blind

Reviewers

At least two independent experts

First decision

2 to 3 months on average

Final decision

Editor in Chief

◆ The six stages

Initial evaluation

Assignment of reviewers

Review

Decision

Revision

Publication

No.	Stage	What happens	Typical time
1	Initial evaluation	The editors check the scope, the format, the originality, and the ethics of the manuscript.	Before the manuscript is sent to reviewers
2	Assignment of reviewers	Independent reviewers are invited, and the manuscript is anonymized.	Within 2 weeks
3	Review	The reviewers evaluate the manuscript and recommend a decision.	Usually 2 weeks
4	Decision	The Editor in Chief decides to accept, to ask for a revision, or to reject.	Average of 2 to 3 months from submission to the first decision
5	Revision	The authors revise the manuscript, and the revision is checked.	2 weeks for a minor revision, 4 weeks for a major revision
6	Publication	The final version is copyedited, formatted, and published.	Average of 3 to 6 months from acceptance

Times are estimates

The times above are estimates and not guarantees. They depend on the availability of reviewers, the complexity of the manuscript, and the number of review rounds. The planned dates of the issues are shown on the Publication Frequency page.

1. Initial Evaluation

The editors first decide whether a manuscript can be sent to reviewers.

Check	What the editors examine
Scope and focus	The manuscript must fit the scope of the journal and meet the conditions for publication.
Format	The editorial office checks the format, the citation style, and the compliance with the instructions for authors. A manuscript that does not comply is returned for reformatting and resubmission. See the Author Guidelines and the Manuscript Preparation page.
Originality	The manuscript is screened for similarity, as stated in the Plagiarism Policy.
Ethics	For research that involves participants, the editors check that the permission and the consent are described and that the required statements are included, as stated in Publication Ethics.

About similarity scores

A similarity score is a screening signal only and is not proof of plagiarism. A high score leads the editor to examine the manuscript and does not lead to automatic rejection.

2. Assignment of Reviewers

◆

The assigned editor invites at least two independent experts in the research area of the manuscript.

◆

The reviewers should come from institutions that are different from the institution of the corresponding author.

◆

Reviewers accept or decline the invitation on the basis of their expertise, their availability, and any conflict of interest. The journal aims to assign reviewers within two weeks.

◆

Researchers who wish to review for the journal can register through the Call for Reviewer form. The reviewers are listed on the Reviewer Board page.

◆ 2.1 Anonymity

◆

Before the review, the editorial office removes the names of the authors, the affiliations, the acknowledgements, and the statements of author contribution.

◆

These items are placed in a separate title page file, which the reviewers do not receive.

◆

The statements on funding and competing interests, which are found in the Acknowledgements section, are kept by the editors for their own use.

◆

Personal information in the properties of the file is also removed.

◆ 2.2 Conflicts of Interest

◆

A reviewer or an editor who has a conflict of interest must decline the review or abstain from the decision, as described in the Conflicts of Interest policy.

◆

A manuscript that is submitted by an editor or by a member of the editorial board is handled by an editor who is not involved in it. The author takes no part in the evaluation or in the decision.

3. Review

◆

The reviewers are usually given two weeks. The maximum is two weeks, unless the editorial secretariat agrees to an extension.

◆

The reviewers give constructive feedback and recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection.

◆

The main questions of the reviewers follow the structure of the article template.

Part of the manuscript	Questions for the reviewer
Title and abstract	Do the title and the abstract describe the study accurately, and do the abstract and the keywords make the contribution clear?
Introduction	Are the background, the state of the art, the gap in knowledge, the novelty, and the research question or objective clear?
Research Method	Are the research design, the data and the sample, the instruments or variables, and the analysis appropriate and reproducible? Are the validity and the reliability of the instruments or measures explained, and are the permission and the consent of participants or data providers described where they apply?
Results and Discussion	Are the results correct and presented clearly? Does the discussion link the results to earlier research and theory, and does it explain the implications for the theory and the practice of accounting and finance?
Conclusion	Is the conclusion supported by the results, and does it answer the research question?
References	Are the references accurate, current, and in the required style, and does the manuscript cite the relevant earlier work?
Ethics and integrity	Are there signs of plagiarism, of fabricated or manipulated data, of undisclosed use of generative AI, or of other concerns?

Confidentiality and generative AI

Reviewers must keep the manuscripts confidential and must not upload them to generative AI tools. They may use such tools only to improve the language of their own report, as stated in the Generative AI Policies.

4. Decision

◆

The Editor in Chief makes the final decision on the basis of the comments of the reviewers and the conditions for publication.

◆

If the comments of the reviewers differ significantly, the academic editor may invite an additional reviewer before a decision is made.

Decision	Meaning
Accept	The manuscript goes to copyediting and publication.
Minor revision	Small changes are needed, and the authors have 2 weeks.
Major revision	Substantial changes are needed, and the authors have 4 weeks.
Reject	The manuscript is not accepted for publication in the journal.

◆

The decision and the comments of the reviewers are sent through the online system, and the comments remain anonymous.

◆

Fees never influence a decision. Decisions rest on the quality and the relevance of the work, as stated in Publication Ethics and on the Author Fees page.

5. Revision Process

A manuscript that is accepted with revisions must be resubmitted, normally within 2 weeks for a minor revision and within 4 weeks for a major revision. The resubmission must include the following.

The revised manuscript, with the changes highlighted.

A rebuttal letter that answers each comment, explains each change, or explains why a comment was not followed.

◆

A major revision normally goes to a second round of review by the same reviewers. For a minor revision, further review is optional.

◆

Authors who need more time must tell the editors before the deadline.

6. Complaints and Appeals

◆

An author who believes that a decision was based on an error or on an unfair review may appeal by email to the editorial office at jurnal.akua@gmail.com, using the following subject line:

Appeal: [Manuscript Identifier]

◆

The appeal should give clear reasons and evidence and should respond to the specific points of the decision.

◆

Disagreement alone is not a ground for reconsideration.

◆

An editor who is not involved reviews the appeal and may seek an additional opinion.

◆

The decision on the appeal is final, and a manuscript can be appealed only once.

◆

Concerns about misconduct in the review process fall under the Allegations of Misconduct policy.

7. Publication

◆

After acceptance, the authors submit the final version, which is copyedited and formatted.

◆

Changes after publication follow the Correction and Retraction policy. Scholarly comments follow the Post Publication Discussion procedure.

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement for Peer Review

The journal is committed to publication ethics and to the prevention of malpractice. The full duties of editors and reviewers are stated in the Publication Ethics policy.

Commitment	What it means
Confidentiality	Information about a manuscript and its review must not be disclosed by editors, reviewers, or others who are involved.
Objectivity and impartiality	Reviews are based on merit, are free from bias and conflicts of interest, and are constructive.
Timeliness	Reviews are completed in a reasonable time, and the authors are updated promptly.
Transparency and accountability	Reviewers give clear and reasoned comments, and editors decide fairly.
Conflicts of interest	Editors and reviewers declare conflicts of interest, and the journal keeps the evaluation unbiased.
Plagiarism and misconduct	Editors and reviewers watch for plagiarism, fabrication of data, and other misconduct, and report it promptly under the Allegations of Misconduct policy.
Recognition of reviewers	The journal recognizes and credits the contribution of reviewers.