Reviewer Guidelines

Introduction

Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the academic quality, integrity, originality, and relevance of articles published in the Journal of Accounting and Management (JAM). Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, comprehensive, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts.

The Journal of Accounting and Management applies a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts solely on the basis of their academic merit, methodological soundness, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s focus and scope.

1. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  1. evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and independently;
  2. provide constructive comments supported by clear academic reasoning;
  3. maintain the confidentiality of all manuscripts and related information;
  4. disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest;
  5. decline a review invitation when the manuscript falls outside their field of expertise;
  6. complete the review within the period specified by the editor;
  7. identify relevant published works that have not been properly cited;
  8. notify the editor of any suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, or other ethical misconduct; and
  9. refrain from using unpublished information contained in the manuscript for personal or professional purposes.

Personal criticism, discriminatory comments, unsupported accusations, and offensive language are not permitted in the review report.

2. Scope and Relevance

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript is relevant to the focus and scope of the Journal of Accounting and Management.

The journal publishes original research and scholarly articles in the fields of accounting and management, including, but not limited to:

  • financial accounting;
  • management accounting;
  • auditing;
  • taxation;
  • public sector accounting;
  • accounting information systems;
  • behavioral accounting;
  • financial management;
  • marketing management;
  • human resource management;
  • strategic management;
  • international business;
  • entrepreneurship; and
  • other related areas of accounting, management, economics, and business.

A manuscript that does not correspond to the journal’s focus and scope should be identified in the review report.

3. Originality and Academic Contribution

Reviewers should evaluate whether:

  1. the manuscript presents an original contribution to the relevant field;
  2. the research problem is important and clearly formulated;
  3. the research gap is explicitly identified;
  4. the novelty of the study is clearly explained;
  5. the manuscript contributes to the development of theory, methodology, policy, or managerial practice;
  6. the manuscript substantially differs from previously published studies; and
  7. the claims of originality are supported by an adequate review of the literature.

Reviewers should inform the editor when they identify substantial similarities between the submitted manuscript and other published or unpublished works.

4. Title

Reviewers should evaluate whether the title:

  1. accurately represents the content of the manuscript;
  2. clearly identifies the principal variables, concepts, or research context;
  3. is concise, specific, informative, and academically appropriate;
  4. avoids unnecessary abbreviations, formulas, and overly general expressions; and
  5. is consistent with the objectives, methods, and findings of the study.

5. Abstract and Keywords

Reviewers should determine whether the abstract clearly and concisely presents:

  1. the background or research problem;
  2. the objective of the study;
  3. the research method or approach;
  4. the principal findings;
  5. the main conclusion;
  6. the theoretical or practical implications, where appropriate; and
  7. the principal contribution or novelty of the study.

The abstract should be understandable as an independent summary of the article and should not contain citations, undefined abbreviations, tables, or figures.

The keywords should:

  • represent the principal concepts discussed in the manuscript;
  • be specific and relevant to the research topic;
  • support article indexing and discoverability; and
  • avoid unnecessarily repeating every term contained in the title.

6. Introduction

Reviewers should evaluate whether the introduction:

  1. provides a clear and relevant background to the study;
  2. explains the significance of the research problem;
  3. presents an adequate review of recent and relevant literature;
  4. critically identifies theoretical, empirical, methodological, or contextual gaps;
  5. clearly explains the novelty and contribution of the study;
  6. formulates the research objectives or questions consistently;
  7. presents hypotheses where applicable; and
  8. avoids excessive presentation of general definitions or unrelated information.

The introduction should establish a logical relationship among the research background, literature gap, research objectives, and expected contribution.

7. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Where applicable, reviewers should evaluate whether:

  1. the literature review is relevant, critical, and sufficiently comprehensive;
  2. the references are current and predominantly derived from credible academic sources;
  3. the manuscript critically synthesizes previous studies rather than merely listing them;
  4. the theoretical framework is appropriate for explaining the research problem;
  5. the relationships among variables or concepts are logically developed;
  6. the research hypotheses or propositions are supported by theory and previous findings; and
  7. the literature review demonstrates the position and contribution of the present study.

8. Research Method

Reviewers should evaluate whether the research method is appropriate, transparent, rigorous, and reproducible.

Quantitative Research

For quantitative studies, reviewers should assess:

  1. the research design;
  2. the population and sampling technique;
  3. the sample size and its justification;
  4. the operational definitions of variables;
  5. the measurement instruments;
  6. the validity and reliability of the instruments;
  7. the data collection procedures;
  8. the statistical analysis techniques;
  9. the fulfillment of relevant statistical assumptions; and
  10. the appropriateness of the analysis for answering the research questions or testing the hypotheses.

Qualitative Research

For qualitative studies, reviewers should assess:

  1. the qualitative research approach and design;
  2. the selection of participants or informants;
  3. the research setting and context;
  4. the data collection procedures;
  5. the adequacy and saturation of the data;
  6. the data analysis procedures;
  7. the credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability of the findings;
  8. the triangulation or validation procedures; and
  9. the researcher’s explanation of reflexivity where relevant.

Mixed-Methods Research

For mixed-methods studies, reviewers should assess:

  1. the justification for combining quantitative and qualitative approaches;
  2. the mixed-methods design;
  3. the sequence and priority of each method;
  4. the procedures for collecting and analyzing each type of data; and
  5. the integration of quantitative and qualitative findings.

Literature Reviews and Systematic Reviews

For review articles, reviewers should assess:

  1. the clarity of the review question;
  2. the selection of databases and information sources;
  3. the search strategy and keywords;
  4. the inclusion and exclusion criteria;
  5. the article selection process;
  6. the method used to assess the quality of the selected literature;
  7. the data extraction and synthesis procedures; and
  8. the transparency and reproducibility of the review process.

9. Results

Reviewers should evaluate whether:

  1. the results directly address the research objectives, questions, or hypotheses;
  2. the findings are presented clearly, systematically, and objectively;
  3. the statistical results are reported accurately;
  4. qualitative findings are supported by sufficient and relevant evidence;
  5. tables and figures are necessary, readable, and not duplicative;
  6. the narrative explanation is consistent with the information presented in tables and figures;
  7. the results are not mixed with unsupported interpretations; and
  8. all important findings, including unexpected or non-significant findings, are reported appropriately.

Reviewers should verify the consistency of numerical data among the abstract, results, tables, figures, discussion, and conclusion.

10. Discussion

Reviewers should determine whether the discussion:

  1. provides a critical and scientifically sound interpretation of the findings;
  2. explains why the findings occurred;
  3. relates the findings to the research objectives and theoretical framework;
  4. compares the findings with relevant previous studies;
  5. explains similarities, differences, and contradictions with earlier research;
  6. clearly demonstrates the theoretical contribution of the study;
  7. explains the practical, managerial, professional, or policy implications;
  8. avoids merely repeating the results;
  9. acknowledges the limitations of the study; and
  10. identifies meaningful directions for future research.

The discussion should reflect analytical depth and synthesis rather than a simple description of the findings.

11. Conclusion

Reviewers should evaluate whether the conclusion:

  1. directly answers the research objectives or questions;
  2. is based on the findings presented in the manuscript;
  3. concisely summarizes the main contribution of the study;
  4. avoids introducing new data, citations, or arguments;
  5. does not make claims beyond the evidence produced by the study;
  6. states the theoretical or practical implications where relevant;
  7. includes appropriate recommendations; and
  8. is written in a clear and coherent paragraph.

12. References and Citation

Reviewers should assess whether:

  1. the references are relevant to the research topic;
  2. the references are sufficiently current;
  3. primary sources, particularly peer-reviewed journal articles, are adequately represented;
  4. seminal references are included where theoretically necessary;
  5. all sources cited in the text are included in the reference list;
  6. all entries in the reference list are cited in the manuscript;
  7. citations and references consistently follow the journal’s prescribed referencing style;
  8. Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) are included where available;
  9. references from unreliable or predatory sources are avoided; and
  10. excessive self-citation or irrelevant citation is not present.

The use of reference management software, such as Mendeley, Zotero, or EndNote, is strongly recommended to maintain citation consistency.

13. Tables, Figures, and Supplementary Materials

Reviewers should determine whether:

  1. tables and figures are relevant and necessary;
  2. each table and figure has a clear and informative title;
  3. all tables and figures are referred to in the text;
  4. the data presented are accurate and consistent with the narrative;
  5. abbreviations, symbols, and sources are adequately explained;
  6. image quality and resolution are suitable for publication;
  7. tables and figures do not unnecessarily duplicate information; and
  8. supplementary materials provide meaningful support for the article.

14. Language and Presentation

Reviewers should assess whether:

  1. the manuscript is written in clear, formal, and academically appropriate language;
  2. the arguments are logically organized and easy to follow;
  3. technical terms are used accurately and consistently;
  4. the manuscript avoids ambiguous, repetitive, informal, or discriminatory language;
  5. headings and subheadings are used consistently;
  6. the manuscript complies with the journal template and author guidelines; and
  7. grammatical or linguistic issues do not interfere with the interpretation of the article.

Reviewers are not required to perform detailed copyediting. However, they should inform the editor when the language quality substantially affects the readability or scientific interpretation of the manuscript.

15. Research Ethics and Data Integrity

Reviewers should examine whether:

  1. the research complies with relevant ethical principles;
  2. ethical approval is reported for research involving human participants, personal data, or other regulated subjects;
  3. informed consent is reported where applicable;
  4. confidentiality and privacy are adequately protected;
  5. the manuscript contains no indication of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation;
  6. authorship and contributor information appear appropriate;
  7. funding sources and conflicts of interest are disclosed;
  8. data and results are reported honestly and transparently; and
  9. the manuscript does not contain duplicate, redundant, or fragmented publication.

Any suspected ethical violation should be reported confidentially to the editor and should not be communicated directly to the authors as an accusation.

16. Confidentiality and Use of Artificial Intelligence

Submitted manuscripts are confidential documents. Reviewers must not:

  1. share the manuscript or review materials with unauthorized individuals;
  2. discuss the manuscript with third parties without the editor’s permission;
  3. use unpublished ideas, methods, data, or findings for personal advantage;
  4. upload the manuscript, tables, figures, data, or review report to publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence platforms; or
  5. use artificial intelligence tools in a manner that compromises manuscript confidentiality or author privacy.

The reviewer remains fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, originality, and confidentiality of the review report.

17. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline the review invitation when they have a conflict of interest arising from:

  • personal or professional relationships with the authors;
  • recent or ongoing collaboration with the authors;
  • direct academic or commercial competition;
  • financial interests related to the manuscript;
  • institutional relationships that may affect impartiality; or
  • any other condition that could influence an objective assessment.

When uncertain, reviewers should disclose the potential conflict to the editor, who will determine whether the review may proceed.

18. Structure of the Review Report

A review report should contain the following components:

A. General Evaluation

Provide a concise assessment of:

  • the relevance of the topic;
  • the originality and contribution of the study;
  • the methodological quality;
  • the clarity of the results and discussion; and
  • the overall suitability of the manuscript for publication.

B. Major Comments

Major comments should address substantive issues that may affect:

  • the validity of the research;
  • the appropriateness of the method;
  • the accuracy of the analysis;
  • the originality of the contribution;
  • the interpretation of the findings; or
  • the reliability of the conclusion.

C. Minor Comments

Minor comments may address:

  • unclear sentences;
  • terminology;
  • presentation of tables and figures;
  • incomplete citations;
  • formatting inconsistencies; or
  • other issues that do not substantially affect the validity of the study.

Reviewer comments should be specific, constructive, polite, and sufficiently detailed to guide authors in revising their manuscripts.

19. Recommendation

After completing the evaluation, reviewers should select one of the following recommendations:

  1. Accept Submission
    The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.
  2. Revisions Required
    The manuscript requires minor or moderate revisions that can be evaluated by the editor without an additional full review.
  3. Resubmit for Review
    The manuscript requires substantial revision and should undergo another round of peer review.
  4. Decline Submission
    The manuscript contains fundamental weaknesses that cannot be adequately addressed through revision or is not suitable for the journal.

The recommendation should be consistent with the comments provided in the review report. Reviewers provide recommendations to the editor, while the final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned editor.

20. Review Completion

Reviewers should submit their review through the journal’s Open Journal Systems platform within the specified review period.

When additional time is required, the reviewer should promptly contact the editor. When unable to complete the review, the reviewer should decline the assignment as early as possible so that another qualified reviewer can be appointed.

The Journal of Accounting and Management sincerely appreciates the expertise, time, and scholarly contribution of its reviewers in maintaining the quality, credibility, and integrity of the journal.